The Photography Thread

[MartyG]

Oh, right. Sylvester Stallone's character, John Spartan, goes to the toilet, but as it's in the future in Demolition Man and he'd been deep freezed in cryogenic statis for a while, he couldn't use the "three sea-shells" thing in the loos, where there's no loo-roll. Worth watching the film as it's nay bad.

Vivitaring your ass refers back to my £12 digi-camera project and comment in post #3053

[merf]

quick question photo chums, I have a Nikon d40x digital slr and 2 zoom lenses, an AF DX 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and a 55-200mm f4-56 AF VR DX.

what would you guys recommend as a nice fast fixed lense, a 50mm, a 28mm and what are the benefits if any over what I already have ?

[MartyG]

Depends what type of photography you like doing. The lenses you have cover pretty much everything you could want other than super long telephoto and proper macro stuff.

The advantages with primes are, usually, brighter faster glass (i.e., smaller f stop number, which means you can have faster shutter speeds in low light and stop fast moving objects which VR won't help with), sharper photos and more contrast.

You probably don't need a prime lens, but everyone gets lens addiction. The 50mm f1.8 is a great lens and a real bargain at £80, and on a D40 would make a nice portrait lens.

[Gareth C]

Or sell the two lenses you have and put the money towards the amazing Nikon 18-200 which, basically, is incredible and no slower than either of your lenses in reality.

[merf]

i've been looking at that 50mm nikkon lense as read good things about it and liked the idea of trying some shots at f1.8 to see what it does to the depth of the pic.

also been hovering around ebay a lot looking at that 18-200 (your comments back up what I thought), there is a very good seller of new gear on there who does it for £470 but as i'm new to this i'm trying to resist the natural bloke temptation to buy loads of gear for the sake of it.

ta for the replies.

[Gareth C]

Yes, the 18-200 is brilliant. Its another reason I seriously think I will go Nikon rather than Canon (also prefer the set-up and handling of Nikon oover Canon). That said, it obviously doesn't compete with Nikon's other zooms that cover less range but its compact and pretty decent at all lengths. It gets soft obviously near the top end but thats to be expected. As a carry around lens its great and will do most jobs pretty well.

You would probably still want a prime of some sort. The 50 is nice but you might want something wider too...This is the problem with cameras, once you get started its hard to stop.

The 50/1.4 AF is a nice lens. Wide open it has some issues but improved from f2 and by f4 its on a par with most primes. Problem with lots of these lenses wide open is that the bokeh (out of focus rendering) can get pretty ugly. Thats another reason i'm such as big fan of Rangefinders.

I think my dream Nikon set up would be a 18-200 for most uses with a fast 50 prime. A 12-24/4 or 17-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8 and then a 70-200 for landscapes...some money there though and the 70-200 is a big lens!

[funkydan]

I was thinking about getting that Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens for my D200. As I understand it, it'll let in more light than my other lens (18-135 f3.5) due to the wider aperture available, is that right? If so, I might get it as I cannot use a flash when photographing live performances and need to let as much light in as possible.

[Alastair]

Correct Dan, all my recent live shots have been with the Canon 50mm f1.8.

It may be a bit tight due to only being 50mm but you can usually work around that.

[Garf]

Is the 18-200 VR really good then ? It's had great reviews, but it's always nice to hear it from a 'real' person.

I have just got a D40 with the 18-55 kit lens, and once I've learned how to actually use the camera and take decent shots, I would be interested in expanding my lens range, and I have been looking at either just getting the 18-200 or complementing the 18-55 with the 55-200 VR.

The upside of the 18-200 is obviously the convenience of a lens that covers a great range, but it's also 500 quid ! It also makes the kit lens redundant.

With the 55-200, I get the same total range, at much less cost, but with the added hassle of having to swap lenses.

If I get the 55-200, I save some money which I could put towards a wide angle lens for landscapes (that's right isn't it - wide angle for landscapes ?)

Oh man - so many decisions....

[Ish]

Garf - thats the reason I bought the 55-200 rather than the 18-200. I'd like the convenience but I put the saving towards something else (a flash). I tend to keep the 18-55 in my pocket

[Gareth C]

Dan, there are lenses that are faster (let more light in) than the 1.8. I know there is a 1.4 and there might even be a 1.2. Of course, they will cost more. The other problem with any of those lenses is that they probably won't focus as fast or as accurately when 'wide open'.

Garf, the 18-200 has lots of limitations and obviously can't produce the sort of results a prime lens (or zoom with less range) can but its still an amazing achievement that it does what it can.

Wide angle for landscapes? Overall, yes! But it really depends on your style. A wide angle will allow you to create some panoramic shots but obviously you won't be zoomed in on any particular element. Be wary of going too wide angle though as distortion of foreground objects can be a problem. On the plus side it does help in creating great dynamic shots with clouds etc.

[Garf]

While I'm posting, and not lurking for a change, I saw this on another forum, and thought it looked great fun - anyone ever done anything like this ? - http://www.shootexperience.com/

From what I can tell, it's like a treasure hunt, but each clue requires you to take a photo as well.

Looks like they run monthly competitions (seems fairly London based though), as well as corporate events, so I might even be able to get the suits here to pay for it....

[Garf]

Garf - thats the reason I bought the 55-200 rather than the 18-200. I'd like the convenience but I put the saving towards something else (a flash). I tend to keep the 18-55 in my pocket

That's my thinking - I could get a SB400 or something else with the difference.

;Garf, the 18-200 has lots of limitations and obviously can't produce the sort of results a prime lens (or zoom with less range) can but its still an amazing achievement that it does what it can.

Just found out a guy at work has the 18-200, and he loves it..

Thanks for the replies - something to think about. As I say, my first goal is to learn how to use the camera first, and (hopefully) take some shots to be proud of, and then expand. I've a sneaky suspicion that budget will play some part in the decision though..

It's amazing how much there is to learn, and how hard it can be (to me anyway) to get a good shot - I went out for a few hours at the weekend, and took way over 100 photos, and was only happy enough with 4 of them to put them on flickr (and they're still probably rubbish )

Still, part of the fun is learning, so happy days....

[funkydan]

Dan, there are lenses that are faster (let more light in) than the 1.8. I know there is a 1.4 and there might even be a 1.2. Of course, they will cost more. The other problem with any of those lenses is that they probably won't focus as fast or as accurately when 'wide open'.

Thanks Gareth, yeah there are those others but with the faster speeds comes higher prices and my budget is strictly <&#163;100 so the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 would be just the ticket for me I think. Also, I can't go too overboard with this new venture of mine in case I suddenly get bored of it 3 months down the line - however I sincerely doubt that will happen!

Cheers for the advice

Dan

[Gareth C]

Garf, makre sure you join teh NTSC group at Flickr that marty started.

As for that shoot experience...we tried to do it last year but it got cancelled. Never got round to trying since.

The Tate also run some interesting photography courses with some sessions specialising in a kind of 'run around london shooting' assignment way!