Beginning into photography

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 8,435
Re: I knew you'd get back to me

Mackiesback wrote:

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

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.

Me too ... (Sacramento) ...

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.

You do realize that the RX100 was priority designed to be "small", (rather than "pro" lens quality). Sharp "corners" requires more lens-elements, (thus probably would be larger).

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 can't competently argue the specific resolution/quality beyond my experience that I get very sharp 24"x36" and even the digital-zoom to 3200mm-EFL is sharper than I would expect, (it is only .3mpx of data).

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

It was obviously not intended for "professional" use.

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?

I have not used it for years, all my SLR/dSLR gear in in boxes. (including RZ-67 and Mamiya Universal 6x9)

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.

I fully agree, and have not tested for that.

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.

Maybe you misunderstood, I meant that a "fixed" lens can replace and eliminate the need to carry/change lenses, (thus be more convenient with the additional advantage of longer-range fill-flash).

I like to do AIR-SHOWS and have missed countless shots over the years when I had the wrong lens for a specific aircraft. I may need a WA for a large group of planes flying "low", and then suddenly "one" of them zooms up to 10,000' and it is thus impossible to shoot both. With the "continuous" zoom, I don't miss those any more. I can go from WA to full-TELE in 5 seconds, (and then back to WA again).

you prefer versatility over quality.

Quick Question Mackiesback: What is better ...

A Good/Average/Bad image that "exists" ???

or

A Perfect Quality (in every way), image that does NOT exist ???

So does not "versatility" enable MORE images, (good or bad) ???

And this is a "beginners" room, are most of them able to extract/exploit a "quality" camera to its fullest extent ???

And do you disagree that a competent/good photographer can produce "quality" images from ANY camera ??? So does "versatility" prevent quality images ???

And exactly what percentage of (beginners) who buy dSLR "kits" ever buy more extra lenses ??? (I suggest less than 5% of the general public, and only 50% of DPR "beginners".)

So would that 95% (or 50% of DPR's beginners), be better off w/ a (versatile) "bridge" w/ "continuous" zoom that is wider/longer/faster than typical "kit" lenses ???

(NOTE that I suggest/agree most purchasers do indeed "intend" to probably buy additional lenses, but I suggest MOST DON'T ACTUALLY DO IT.)

As we have clearly seen when you trot out the same set of average looking snapshots over and over,

I suggest it was "versatility" that enabled most of the images I display. Call them "snapshots" if you like, but I challenge you to duplicate any of them w/ a total cost of $600. and w/ NO PP. The Moon/Capitol image was @ 800mm, the close Bird-of-Paradise, (w/ black background), was in SUN-light, the (yellow/orange) Gas Tanker Truck was in half-SUN and half-DeepSHADOW. several w/ SUN-light fill-flash @ 20', and some "night" shots over 1.5 miles away, (and some 6+miles away @ 3200mm).

That's great. That's not for everybody.

I realize it is not for "everyone" ... but is there anything wrong with giving them their "options" (w/out everyone else putting down that suggestion and thus confusing a "beginner" who it might be best for) ???

Please understand that and quit selling.

But everyone else here is "selling" larger-sensor and only ILC, (which is indeed better for some but not all either).

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.

I understand and agree with that.

I can only state that I just sent some 12mm-EFL examples to another guy who was inquiring and he agree they were very sharp. (and you can't even get "12"mm-EFL -- my FF Nikon was only 14mm and the 5072 is wider)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow