The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Camera help. What lens?
Mr_Grinch
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hi guys and girls, hoping someone can help out. I've ventured in to the world of Digital SLRs without too much knowledge on the subject. My Mam and Dad bought me a D3000 for Christmas and I've had a bit of fun with it but, due to the crappy weather in this country, I haven't had chance to get much use out of it.
Now the weather is getting better I'm hoping to get out more, I'm also off to Orlando on my honeymoon (4 weeks today!) so I'll get some decent pictures there.
Up to now I've only got the kit lens (18-55mm) , i'm looking at spending a little bit of cash but not too much. I was debating getting:
- Infra-Red remote (http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5708417/Trail/searchtext>NIKON+REMOTE.htm)
- Sigma 55-200mm lens (http://www.ukoptics.co.uk/sigma-55200mm-f456-dc-hsm-p-627.html)
The type of shots I'll be taking are:
- Landscape shots whilst on holiday in Orlando/driving through the lake district in this country. I'd love a wide angle lens for some of these but judging by the price that ain't happening!
- Portrait shots. I really dig the field of view effect. I'm not very technical, but altering the apperture to blur the background whilst keeping the foreground in focus? At present I can do this but I read in the instruction manual that a 55-200mm lens would give a more pronounced effect.
- Action shots at a bit of a distance. I'll be out rock climbing again soon and would love to get some good pictures of me clinging to a wall, however there's only two of us so I figured the infra-red remote combined with a tripod would work well for this (It's a bit risky having the person keeping you safe let go of the rope to run over to a camera! The remote would make things easier).
Are my purchase choices wise? Would you recommend a different lens? I played around with a friends 55-200mm on their D40 and it seems to do what I'm after. Am I ok with Sigma or would going Nikon give me considerably better quality (considering I'm a total amateur).
Cheers.
Now the weather is getting better I'm hoping to get out more, I'm also off to Orlando on my honeymoon (4 weeks today!) so I'll get some decent pictures there.
Up to now I've only got the kit lens (18-55mm) , i'm looking at spending a little bit of cash but not too much. I was debating getting:
- Infra-Red remote (http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5708417/Trail/searchtext>NIKON+REMOTE.htm)
- Sigma 55-200mm lens (http://www.ukoptics.co.uk/sigma-55200mm-f456-dc-hsm-p-627.html)
The type of shots I'll be taking are:
- Landscape shots whilst on holiday in Orlando/driving through the lake district in this country. I'd love a wide angle lens for some of these but judging by the price that ain't happening!
- Portrait shots. I really dig the field of view effect. I'm not very technical, but altering the apperture to blur the background whilst keeping the foreground in focus? At present I can do this but I read in the instruction manual that a 55-200mm lens would give a more pronounced effect.
- Action shots at a bit of a distance. I'll be out rock climbing again soon and would love to get some good pictures of me clinging to a wall, however there's only two of us so I figured the infra-red remote combined with a tripod would work well for this (It's a bit risky having the person keeping you safe let go of the rope to run over to a camera! The remote would make things easier).
Are my purchase choices wise? Would you recommend a different lens? I played around with a friends 55-200mm on their D40 and it seems to do what I'm after. Am I ok with Sigma or would going Nikon give me considerably better quality (considering I'm a total amateur).
Cheers.
Mr_Grinch on
0
Posts
The Nikon lens is really great, especially for the price. You won't get amazing portraits with a relatively slow lens but I have some very nice pictures of people taken with this lens (although they do have to be somewhat far away). I have some sigma lenses and they're not bad, but in general if there's a Nikon equivalent you'll like it more. And VR definitely helps for telephoto (turn it off if you're on a tripod, though).
The remote in the US is $20 and I think it's a great thing to have around. I'm not sure about the range, though, if you'd be too far away while climbing in some situations. Would work overall, though.
The 55-200 isn't much of a lens. It's rather slow (small maximum aperture) and won't give you very good out of focus blur. It's very soft anywhere near wide open and gets softer towards the long end. If you had a camera body with an in-body focus motor I'd have sent you to the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, but it won't autofocus on your body so that's no good. Though the same max aperture as the 35mm I linked above, its longer focal length makes for less distortion and easier to achieve shallow depth of field.
Photography can be a very expensive hobby. In my opinion, you should use your current lens to learn the basics of photography, and take as many pictures as you can with it to get the feel of it, before investing in another lens.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch