What Lens Should I Get?

[Leukeh]

Same idea as the camera thread, but just lenses. People looking to buy can post here and get experienced advice/reviews on what they're looking at etc.

I'll probably end up posting here sometime soon...

[KendraJ.K.]

I'm looking to get the sigma 10-20mm. i want a very wide angle and it's wider than the nikon one i was looking at and about $200-$300 less.
anyone have any experience with this lens? or a suggestion on a different wide angle that's aroung $500 or less.

(i'm using a Nikon D70s btw. :) )

[Nike]

I can't help you with the Sigma lens, but maybe the tokina 12-24 would also be an option to concider - it's said to be a very good lens, but I don't have any personal experience with it.

[KendraJ.K.]

i'll have to look into it. just a quick search it's about the same price as the sigma. although i was looking at the sigma for how wide it is, but the original nikon lens i was looking at is 12-24 too

thanks for the suggestion :)

[PizzDragon]

I have a Nikon D70s with the 18-200mm VR lense. I am considering picking up a 50mm 1.4D or 1.8D for low light/indoor photography... My question is, how much does the super-wide aperture help in capturing blur free images in low light? I can hand hold my 18-200 down to around 1/8 of a second and get blur free results about 1/3 tries on still objects, however it requires too much concentration and time to convince my naturally shaky hands to remain still enough to capture such pictures.

So can anyone with experience with the 50mm 1.4/8 lens help me understand how versatile they are in low light situations?

(PS. I hate direct flash photographs and currently dont have a flashgun I can mount and reflect off the ceiling. I do have two homemade diffusers for my built in, but it still separates subject from background)

[ukanfoff]

with the 50mm 1.8 you get more dof and and is forgiving in low light if u wanna use 1.8. the wider, the more it lets in more light...

18-200 3.5 , 3.5 is the widest on it. its not so good using it in low light unless on still subjects.

i do have it, its nicely built for a hundred bucks.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/shutteraperture.htm

[PizzDragon]

I know all that, I was just wondering how big a difference 1.8 would be compared to the 4.8 or whatever my lens is at 50mm (for even comparison). if its only a very small fraction of a second faster, ill be more inclined to grab a flash before the lens. however if i can get away with 1/30 in low light conditions... it may well be worth it. Plus, i understand the bokeh is nice which would make it a fantastic portrait lens.

All I really want to know is in a room well lit by typical tungsten/fluorescent lighting, will I be able to get away with hand held shots without severely underexposing the images? Oh, and I typically dont like shooting higher than ISO 800/1000 because the D70s seems to get quite grainy in low light with high ISO settings.

[ukanfoff]

I know all that, I was just wondering how big a difference 1.8 would be compared to the 4.8 or whatever my lens is at 50mm (for even comparison). if its only a very small fraction of a second faster, ill be more inclined to grab a flash before the lens. however if i can get away with 1/30 in low light conditions... it may well be worth it. Plus, i understand the bokeh is nice which would make it a fantastic portrait lens.

All I really want to know is in a room well lit by typical tungsten/fluorescent lighting, will I be able to get away with hand held shots without severely underexposing the images? Oh, and I typically dont like shooting higher than ISO 800/1000 because the D70s seems to get quite grainy in low light with high ISO settings.

definitly u kan. get away with it... 4.8 vs 1.8 is no contest...
and its sharper too..

[PizzDragon]

Danke! All i needed to know

[ukanfoff]

ur welcome.

[Grumbledook]

indeed a 1.4 lens is on my shopping list and I already have a 2.8

[ukanfoff]

seen that 1.2 yet... hella pricy..

[Leukeh]

Just a quick question, is this lens any good for doing macro photography? I've seen it in shops advertised as a macro lens but on the canon site it's just a standard lens.

http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_lenses/ef50mmF18ii.aspx

If anyone has any experience with it and can tell me anything of the quality, it would be very useful as well.

I'm also looking at a life-size converter as a cheaper option of getting high quality 1:1, with auto focus etc
http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/macro_lenses/lifeSizeConverterEf.aspx - anyone know anything about these?

[Nike]

This is a standard lens, not a macro lens. This lens is good for portraits and landscape.

Canon has a 50 mm macro lens though, but it's f 2,5, this one:
http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/macro_lenses/ef50mmF25CompactMacro.aspx

[Leukeh]

That's what I thought... thanks.

[HuBBaTheMan]

Just a little note on 1.8 vs. 4.8 aperture. If you want blurfree images with a 50mm remember that the DOF is EXTREMELY shallow (as in, a few cm) if you are close to the subject. So to get sharpness all over you need to up the aperture (thus loosing the advantage of better light sensitivity) or move away from the subject (and possibly loosing the composition)

I use 50mm 1.8 myself and love it to bits :D