B
BeaView
Guest
Correct, I was asking if there is that much difference between an 18-55 lens kit and a, let's say, 35mm prime lens worth the expense - given for granted a pleasant composition by default. Thank you
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The lens on the camera I used is one of the best I've seen in all my many years of photography, but for some reason, it just didn't work very well for this picture.To be honest, my comment was more of a joke than anything else (sorry).Thank you, Ed. Right I wasn't thinking about this downsideBe careful and don't buy a lens that's too sharp, or you'll end up with a cat picture like this.
Too sharp.
, so I should take out of the list all the Sigma Arts for cats photography then? Or you were thinking of other lenses as well?
I really have no idea why this shot turned out, so overly sharp, maybe something I did wrong, because other shots with the same camera, and cat, have been better.
I apologize for my attempt at humor.
The picture was so sharp, as you said, that I thought you were actually serious
I might have overexposed the shot, a little, or maybe I had accidentally increased the sharpness somehow.
I was going to simply trash the picture, but decided to keep it because the darn cat knows she gets in trouble for being on the table and my wife thought it was funny.
Last edited:
B
BeaView
Guest
She's right, it doesn't matter the sharpness then, here is a family memory to keep that will always make you smile when looking at it with such a story behind itI was going to simply trash the picture, but decided to keep it because the darn cat knows she gets in trouble for being on the table and my wife thought it was funny.To be honest, my comment was more of a joke than anything else (sorry).Thank you, Ed. Right I wasn't thinking about this downsideBe careful and don't buy a lens that's too sharp, or you'll end up with a cat picture like this.
Too sharp.
I really have no idea why this shot turned out, so overly sharp, maybe something I did wrong, because other shots with the same camera, and cat, have been better.
I apologize for my attempt at humor.
ThrillaMozilla
Veteran Member
Ahem. I wouldn't take this seriously, because that picture actually has rather low resolution. It's 2 megapixels in size. The contrast may also be a bit too high. That's the performance you can get from a 20-year-old pocket camera. So the picture is too contrasty and slightly fuzzy. There is absolutely no way to attribute the appearance of that picture to a lens that's too sharp. Welcome to the Internet.Thank you, Ed. Right I wasn't thinking about this downsideBe careful and don't buy a lens that's too sharp, or you'll end up with a cat picture like this.
Too sharp.
Sharpness is never a disadvantage for a lens, because you can always make any picture as fuzzy as you want. On the other hand, unless you can make a case for why you need extreme sharpness, I doubt that you need it.
Someone asked if you had an 18-55 mm kit lens. The reason was so that you can try it and see what you need, not what someone here wants to sell you. We cannot know exactly what focal length you need.
Ahem. If you're worried that a 35 mm lens has distortion, then why aren't you worried about distortion from an 18-35 mm lens, which is even wider?
You seem to be confused about distortion. You can ask here if you don't understand it, but my suggestion is not to give it a second thought. Chances are, it is of no consequence whatsoever for your purposes, unless you can make a case for why you might need a lens that has extremely low pincushion or barrel distortion.
Last edited:
Yes, if you read my other comments, you'll see that my original was said as a joke, and you're right that the image was downsized (low resolution) for posting to this forum.Ahem. I wouldn't take this seriously, because that picture actually has rather low resolution. It's 2 megapixels in size. The contrast may also be a bit too high. That's the performance you can get from a 20-year-old pocket camera. So the picture is too contrasty and slightly fuzzy. There is absolutely no way to attribute the appearance of that picture to a lens that's too sharp. Welcome to the Internet.Thank you, Ed. Right I wasn't thinking about this downsideBe careful and don't buy a lens that's too sharp, or you'll end up with a cat picture like this.
Too sharp.
I don't really see the fuzziness you're talking about, but do agree it's not a good picture, and as I told the OP, I was originally going to trash it.
Just the same, if I were to trash all my bad snapshots I wouldn't have many pictures left, but I don't take photography seriously enough to really worry about it.
SmilerGrogan
Senior Member
Rambow
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,613
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,157
I don't see how 35mm would be an optimal cat lens, maybe if you crop the edges to make it more like a 50mm. This of course if you can get close to the cat, otherwise 150-200mm makes more sense.
Every person has different needs, need samples to see exactly what OP is shooting.
Every person has different needs, need samples to see exactly what OP is shooting.
150-200mm? Dude, these are house cats at the shelter. Not lions while on safari. Did you even read his original post?
He's shooting with a crop sensor. It's a 50mm equivalent. And an 18-35 lets him go wider if he needs it. That's perfect.
D3 50mm 1.4G
Last edited:
gptwins
Active member
Nikon 105mm Micro
Parry Johnson
Veteran Member
Hi, Bea. You've got some good answers already, but please allow me to throw in my two cents.
First, the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 Art is good, so don't dismiss it. However, there are a couple of limitations:. You've mentioned distortion, which is true if using that lens at less than ~25mm. The bigger problem is that you need to be closer to the cat with a wider lens; and if it is aggressive, shy or moving much then you'll waste time, number of shots and energy trying to get a good picture. You know that cats are "psychic" or "empathetic" and will pick up on frustration.
I therefore suggest a wide-aperture normal zoom in the 17-50 range and with f2.8. VR or similar might help to be able to shoot in lower light, but it won't help subject movement (which is very likely with cats). F2.8 is only 1 & 1/3 stop slower than f1.8, so that's not much of a difference -- if there's not enough amboent light to use f2.8, there's likely not enough to use f1.8 either. Besides, you need some depth of field -- the Sigma 18-35 will give you sharp eyes, but not wiskers. Of course, I'm only talking about shooting wide-open -- everyone's equal otherwise.
For product photography, most often a client wants photos taken with a lens >35mm (full frame). The 18-35 can work for much of the range, but again, sometimes you need some distance or closer detail from more magnification.
I've used several lenses in the 17-50 mm f2.8 range, and frankly, they're all excellent:
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 (You'll need more light with this one, but it has a nice range)
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 (good if you need a bit wider, but a little soft at 50mm).
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC -- this is my recommendation. Almost as good as the Nikkor below.
Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 Expensive, and unfortunately discontinued as new, but almost indestructible and the best image quality, but bigger and heavier than the others -- the lens I currently use, and also good in crop mode with a higher-resolution FF body like my Z7ii.
Finally, get a radio transmitter, an off-camera flash or two, a diffuser like a light box or umbrella, and you're set. Your library will also have some good books to read. Lastly, have fun!!
First, the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 Art is good, so don't dismiss it. However, there are a couple of limitations:. You've mentioned distortion, which is true if using that lens at less than ~25mm. The bigger problem is that you need to be closer to the cat with a wider lens; and if it is aggressive, shy or moving much then you'll waste time, number of shots and energy trying to get a good picture. You know that cats are "psychic" or "empathetic" and will pick up on frustration.
I therefore suggest a wide-aperture normal zoom in the 17-50 range and with f2.8. VR or similar might help to be able to shoot in lower light, but it won't help subject movement (which is very likely with cats). F2.8 is only 1 & 1/3 stop slower than f1.8, so that's not much of a difference -- if there's not enough amboent light to use f2.8, there's likely not enough to use f1.8 either. Besides, you need some depth of field -- the Sigma 18-35 will give you sharp eyes, but not wiskers. Of course, I'm only talking about shooting wide-open -- everyone's equal otherwise.
For product photography, most often a client wants photos taken with a lens >35mm (full frame). The 18-35 can work for much of the range, but again, sometimes you need some distance or closer detail from more magnification.
I've used several lenses in the 17-50 mm f2.8 range, and frankly, they're all excellent:
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 (You'll need more light with this one, but it has a nice range)
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 (good if you need a bit wider, but a little soft at 50mm).
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC -- this is my recommendation. Almost as good as the Nikkor below.
Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 Expensive, and unfortunately discontinued as new, but almost indestructible and the best image quality, but bigger and heavier than the others -- the lens I currently use, and also good in crop mode with a higher-resolution FF body like my Z7ii.
Finally, get a radio transmitter, an off-camera flash or two, a diffuser like a light box or umbrella, and you're set. Your library will also have some good books to read. Lastly, have fun!!
ThrillaMozilla
Veteran Member
Try your kit lens first. Then you should know if you need a different lens, and you should know why.
B
BeaView
Guest
Hi Parry, thank you so much for your kind and detailed reply, I really appreciate it! I will look at those lenses you suggested, and take into account all the info you gave me.
Have a good day!
B
BeaView
Guest
Thank you
B
BeaView
Guest
Thank you very much, Smiler, for sharing all these animal shelter photos and telling me the lens you used, I appreciate it
B
BeaView
Guest
Thank you, gptwins, I was actually looking at this lens also for other purposes, though for the animal shelter the focal length might be a little too long because of the small sizes of cat rooms, but I appreciate your suggestion
LordKOTL
Senior Member
Thanks!
Going off what you and others have been saying in this thread: I would suggest sticking your kit 18-55mm lens on and seeing what focal length you need to get the view you want while attempting the shots you want to take. You should be able to see this in the EXIF information.
You might be able to get away with your kit lens. If not see what the focal length is in the files you shoot at the shelter (EXIF should record that information). That should give you an idea about what focal length will work best for you.
Also, keep in mind I included my shots because I've been to a couple of shelters where they had larger "play rooms" where prospective adopters could play with the kitties. What Bob said holds very true if you really don't have much room--you might have to err wider than 35mm. For the bottom shot with the kitty on her back, I took that with 50mm lens on FX, which will have a similar Angle of View as 35mm on a DX camera like yours. I was about 6 feet away from her when I took that photo (and lying on the ground). That information might help: if you're going to be shooting closer than about 6', you might need a lens wider than 35mm.
Good luck and happy shooting.
Going off what you and others have been saying in this thread: I would suggest sticking your kit 18-55mm lens on and seeing what focal length you need to get the view you want while attempting the shots you want to take. You should be able to see this in the EXIF information.
You might be able to get away with your kit lens. If not see what the focal length is in the files you shoot at the shelter (EXIF should record that information). That should give you an idea about what focal length will work best for you.
Also, keep in mind I included my shots because I've been to a couple of shelters where they had larger "play rooms" where prospective adopters could play with the kitties. What Bob said holds very true if you really don't have much room--you might have to err wider than 35mm. For the bottom shot with the kitty on her back, I took that with 50mm lens on FX, which will have a similar Angle of View as 35mm on a DX camera like yours. I was about 6 feet away from her when I took that photo (and lying on the ground). That information might help: if you're going to be shooting closer than about 6', you might need a lens wider than 35mm.
Good luck and happy shooting.
I shot these with a kit lens on an APS-C camera using a flash bounced off the ceiling:
--
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen
--
B
BeaView
Guest
Thank you so much LordKOTL, I will follow your advice to see which one works better in different situations. Thank you again and have a good day!
B
BeaView
Guest
Thank you Krusty for sharing these examples and the info about lens and camera, I appreciate it very much!I shot these with a kit lens on an APS-C camera using a flash bounced off the ceiling:
Similar threads
- Question
