Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: tapinfool on January 04, 2011, 06:43:54 PM
-
Hey all,
i FINALLY broke down and bought a reconditioned d5000
it came with a Nikon 18-55mm VR AF-S DX Digital Lens
that lens is nice for close up stuff. but, i'm needing something for the concert picture taking
and not sure i can tell which is best from trying to read on the net
looking for a lens that will work good in low light that:
a. wont cost body parts
b. will work from 30-40 feet away without flash
c. has the VR (vibration reduction) feature
any help greatly appreciated
also lookin for used items like:
tripod
filters
lenses
flash
or anything that i might need that i don't know about
thanks for playing 8)
-
Does it have to have VR?
Two options that come to mind are:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381616-REG/Sigma_300306_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html
-
You might consider dropping the VR requirement, especially since budget is an issue. Your biggest challenge in a low light concert environment will be achieving fast enough shutter speeds to freeze subject motion, and VR won't help freeze subject motion.
You'll need an aperture of at least f/2.8 for low light concert photography. And the longer the lens, the more expensive a fixed wide aperture...so you may not find a lens meeting your remaining criteria (good in low light, won't cost body parts, 30-40' working distance). If you drop the 30-40' working distance, your options open up dramatically.
Are you looking at prime or zoom? (Recommend prime. A fast 35mm or 50mm should do the trick.)
Are you open to MF instead of AF? (Should broaden your options substantially, especially with a low budget, and I prefer MF for concert photography, anyway.)
-
yes it has the VR and all the bells and whistles
"Are you looking at prime or zoom?"
not sure as i won't be able to get to the stage lip. so, distance will be a factor in 50% of the shows
"Are you open to MF instead of AF?"
this is my 1st jump into SLR photography and i'm doing as much as i can manually
to learn more about the camera and it's workings.
never thought of just going manual focus...
-
Does it have to have VR?
Two options that come to mind are:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381616-REG/Sigma_300306_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html
How far from the stage can you be and still get clean pics with the 30mm lens?
-
Does it have to have VR?
Two options that come to mind are:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381616-REG/Sigma_300306_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html
How far from the stage can you be and still get clean pics with the 30mm lens?
Brian's post is all great info.
You can get very good photos 30 or so feet back with a 30mm/1.8, the issue will be they will be of the entire stage; no hope of getting a closeup. To get good closeups you really need to bump up to something in the 70mm + range and really will want a 70-200/2.8 if you are not essentially at the stage lip. Unfortunately that means some pretty serious $$. Nikon's 70-200/2.8 VRI is at least $1400 used and if you could find the VRII version new for $2000 you'd be doing well. Sigma makes a really nice version of the same lens that is more affordable and goes for around $800 new.
One other option that might fill your needs is Nikon's 85/1.8 (~$400 new), it is a great piece of glass, but the one real limitation of your camera is the lack of a focus motor so it would be relegated to manual focus. It would give you some better reach from the crowd and a super fast 1.8 aperture, but you would be stuck with manual focus and no zoom.
IMO, if you are serious about shooting concerts, I'd hold off until you can save up the $$ to go for one of the 70-200/2.8s. The Sigma would be a great option and is only $400 more. One other thing to mention, lenses tend to hold their value fairly well, so if you are good about shopping th eused marked and get a good deal you can usually get 80-100% of your $$ back if you sell to upgrade. I started with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and sold it for what I purchased it for when I upgraded to the Nikon version. I could sell my Nikon 70-200/2.8 for maybe $100 less than I paid and that is mainly because they released the VRII and it drove the used price of the VRI down just a bit.
-
great info guys :)
i have been doing TONS of reading/research myself and have come to pretty much the same conclusion...
i need to save some $$$ :P
i did however find a Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED DX VR Lens for $120 used @ usedcameras.com
so, that will get me some daytime zoomage for now 8)
also grabbed 2 of the Sigma EX DG 52mm Multi-Coated UV Filters
a wireless remote and a tripod of modest cost
-
Good stuff. That lens is a good low-cost utility lens. Take a lot of photos and develop your eye, and your skill with the camera.
Why did you get two 52mm filters?
-
for the other for the 18-55 lens that came with the body ;)
-
I say 50mm prime @ f1.8. If you do well with this, upgrade. Any lens you put on the D5000 with seem 1.5 times bigger when you look at the photos at full frame. So the 50mm will actually be 75mm in the 35mm equivalent at the full resolution and if you crop it, you can get much closer.
Whatever lens you do get, purchase a UV filter to protect it from anything and everything.
-
the 50mm might be useful to get a little extra distance for concert shooting, but for general use it's an awkward focal length to use on a crop camera. too long, but not quite long enough.
but, it's cheap, at least at 1.8, so why not give it a go.
-
Whatever lens you do get, purchase a UV filter to protect it from anything and everything.
FWIW I used to be a big believer in this until I started shooting without a UV filter. I gained a noticeable and significant increase in sharpness by not using the filter. Obviously the situation may warrant the added protection, but for me that is pretty rare and I really like the extra sharpness.
-
The 50mm is definitely a good option, and relatively cheap, taboot. But if you're really concerned about shooting from a distance, you might also consider an 85mm f/1.8. Looks like it will set you back $300-400 on the used market, which isn't nearly as expensive as a fast 70-200 zoom.
-
Whatever lens you do get, purchase a UV filter to protect it from anything and everything.
FWIW I used to be a big believer in this until I started shooting without a UV filter. I gained a noticeable and significant increase in sharpness by not using the filter. Obviously the situation may warrant the added protection, but for me that is pretty rare and I really like the extra sharpness.
What filter were you using? Just like lenses there are good filters and bad filters.
-
What filter were you using? Just like lenses there are good filters and bad filters.
i sometimes wonder how many people know this. i see a good amount of people walking around with nice expensive glass, covered by the cheapest filter they can find. just seems strange to me. like replacing your factory head unit while keeping the paper-cone speakers. ::shrug::
i stick with B+W and have no complaints. sure, they cost a little more than the hoya but still only a fraction of the cost of the lens.
-
Just like lenses there are good filters and bad filters.
Filter folks might find these interesting:
UV: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=113
UV supplement: http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html
Polarizer: http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html
Pol supplement: http://www.lenstip.com/119.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_-_supplement.html
-
Whatever lens you do get, purchase a UV filter to protect it from anything and everything.
FWIW I used to be a big believer in this until I started shooting without a UV filter. I gained a noticeable and significant increase in sharpness by not using the filter. Obviously the situation may warrant the added protection, but for me that is pretty rare and I really like the extra sharpness.
What filter were you using? Just like lenses there are good filters and bad filters.
I had several. B&W, Nikon, Tiffen. There was an improvement with the better filters, but particularly in low light I still noticed an improvement not using the filters. I still use them in dirty or tough situations (Think dusty summer festival), but I find keeping my lens caps handy and putting them on when not in use is not that difficult.
-
most of my new toys came today... tripod, 50-200 lens and remote. filters should be here tomorrow ;D ;D ;D
we also got 8" of fresh snow and it's still a'comin' :)
my daughter and i are gonna go out to some waterfalls on friday and do some shootin' in the snow 8)
she also just got a new dslr for christmas. i got her a d3000 kit.
should be a good time