# Photography Dslr Questions



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

I am hoping with all of the camera people on this forum, someone may be able to help with some information on lenses. I have just purchased my first DSLR (Nikon D-80 body) and I am in the market for a good all around lens for it. I am looking at my first lens to be a AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but at this present moment the price is a little steep at least for the next month or so. 
My preference is to stay with Nikon VR (vibration reduction) lenses or Sigma OS (optical stabilizer) lenses. However, I know at least one person on here has experience with Tamron lenses. I have no idea how good they are, how they compare and any "personal experience advice" about this product. I have also seen Phoenix lenses and know absolutely nothing about them either. As I continue my research, I am considering an inexpensive lens to get my feet wet while deciding exactly what lenses I will get and keep. If anyone can suggest any links, information, personal use experience, or advise of any resources for the quality of the Tamron or Phoenix (or any other 1/2 decent lenses) that wont break the bank, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

I am surprised you have had so many views and no responses.

I know this may not help too much but pre digital I had a Nikon F3 and had 3 lens. One was a relatively cheap zoom from 55 to 120mm that was always on the camera. Then I had a very expensive wide angle from 28-50mm and a very expensive telephoto lens from 120-200mm. All the lens were Nikon, I am not 100% sure why I got what I got but being young and in the Navy I had very little to spend my money on. These were all manual stuff to be sure since this was back in the late 70's. Also had a ton of money in a bunch of Cokin filters.

I lost the camera when I was in Saudi Arabia, one of my boxes of personal stuff went missing when I shipped it back to the states.

Good luck with what you get and be sure to post a few of your shots.


----------



## skippershe (May 22, 2006)

Noble,

I have the Nikon d-50 and two lenses...

The first lens is a Tamron AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 tele-macro(1:2) that I had originally purchased to use with my Nikon N80 film camera. It was inexpensive and produces nice digital shots from macro to telephoto. I rarely ever use it, but am glad to have it when I do need it.

The lens I use the most is my Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1:35-4.5G ED
I paid around $229.00 for it at a used camera store. It was a tad pricey, but since I love taking portrait shots, I had to have it. I use it for everything from portraits to scenery shots and am really pleased with it.

I honestly do not notice a difference in photo quality between the two lenses and I don't think I would hesitate in suggesting a Tamron lens.

If I were you, I would go to your local camera store and see if you can purchase the lens you want and try it out with the option of returning/exchanging it for something else. OR...take your camera with you and take some test shots and view them at home. Also, see if you have a used camera store nearby and check their prices on the Nikkor lenses compared to new.

Good luck!


----------



## GoVols (Oct 7, 2005)

Although I am a Canon user, I can highly recommend a lens with image stabilization. It makes hand-holding a camera so much more productive. The lens you mention sounds like a good mid-range zoom, but you are losing a lot on the wide side starting out at 55mm. It's even worse than that since the camera is not a full frame sensor, so there is a multiplier effect going on that changes the effective focal length of lenses on less-than-full frame DLSRs. Don't know what it is for a Nikon, but my Canon is 1.6X. So let's assume your Nikon is the same, so at the wide end your 55mm lens is really like a 88mm lens. That's telephoto territory and you'll be disappointed at how little you can fit in the frame.

You're really going to want a wide lens for landscape or pulling broad subjects in close. If one lens is all you can do, then I would move down and get something like an 18-200 mm. That's a lot of range, but you might also be sacrificing some quality to get that range in a lens like that. I would be more inclined to get a 17-55mm to go along with the 55-200 lens. That's more or less what I do: a 17-55mm for wider angles and indoors, a 70-300mm image-stabilized telephoto, and a 50mm prime lens for portraits.


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Thank you all for the replies. Since my dad has the D80 and matching lenses, thats why I decided to get the same body. I want to get one lens to start so I don't have to borrow his all the time. With his generosity, he has mentioned that I can borrow lenses as needed (most of when I'll be taking these pictures he will probably be camping with us anyways). He currently has a Nikkor 18-55mm VR, Nikkor 55-200mm VR, a Sigma 18-200mm VR, and a Nikkor 80-400mm VR. I have seen the importance of the "image stabilization" (Nikon=VR, Sigma=OS) and pretty much have read the same thing from all of the professional user reviews "Spend the extra money and get the VR" seems like the consensus.
I really appreciate the time and suggestions you all have given and will definitely try what Dawn has suggested. My goal right now is to get something that will do a good job without breaking the bank for now (around the house type stuff and practicing). When we get out into "nature" and look for the wildlife shots, the scenery, and the like....I will be looking forward to using my dad's lenses for the time being. Anyways, thanks again and if you think of any other suggestions, I'll be checking back. I have been learning alot on all of the photography threads here and it's nice to know some people here have the knowledge to help without the "sales pitch" you encounter while trying to learn.


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Paul,

In response to your question regarding the Tamron lenses, they do make a pretty good lens, and you would probably be happy with it, but they are nowhere near the quality of a good Nikor lens. Lenses are what made Nikon - and Canon for that matter - famous, and they are pretty hard to beat. That said, the 'standard package' DSLR lenses that both Nikon and Canon make are not up to the same levels as their higher end models either. If you can afford it, I would stick with the Nikor lenses, and as GoVols said, image stabilization is the best thing to come along in the photo world in a long time. The ability to handhold a 1/60 second exposure at about 500mm just blows me away!

I would be concerned about the length of lens you are looking at, if that is going to be your only lens for awhile. With the D80's small sensor chip, you need to apply a correction factor of about 1.6 to the lens to approximate what the equivilent would be on a 35mm film camera. In other words, that 55-200mm lens you are looking at, will act on your camera like a 88-320mm lens on a film camera. That's great for telephoto work, but - again as GoVols suggested - not so much for normal shots, and lousy if you need any wide angle. On a 35mm film camera, a 50-55mm lens gives a 'normal' field of view (what your unaided eye sees). The equivalent to that on your D80 would be a 31-35mm focal length, so I would suggest a lens that at least includes that focal length in it's range. Of course, it all depends on your mission. You may not have any need for wide angle capabilities, in which case the 55-200 would be great.









Hope this helps.

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Doug,
Most of my shots as I believe right now (I'm sure things will change as I get used to it) is going to be landscape and wildlife. When I see a bird (cant get too close to them before they fly away) I want to be able to bring it in close enough that I can see the clarity in the feathers and the lines in the iris of the eye. I know that all comes with a price but thats why I was trying to find out if any of the lower end lenses were worth it. A $150 lens for my 1st lens would sure beat a $300 - $900 lens right now. I am leaning towards the Nikkor (Nikon) and the Sigma but now to determine which VR lens to decide on. The research goes on with more ammo in my belt thanks to all of you


----------



## Airboss (Jul 14, 2007)

Just a suggestion, but as you consider different lenses don't focus (pun intended) solely on focal lenght. The 'speed' of a lens is also something to consider. I'm not talking about how fast it can focus, but rather how much light the lens will let through to the media (in this case, an optical sensor). The lower the aperture opening, the more light the lens will allow to pass. This is a very important factor if you ever intend to use the lens for photographing objects in motion, portraits, and low-light photography.

For instance, the lens you mentioned has an aperture of f/4-5.6. At the shortest focal length of 55mm, the lens's widest aperture is f4. At the longest focal length the widest aperture is f/5.6. This is typical, but if you can find a lens in your budget that has an aperture of f/2.8 (or better yet, f/2) at it's shortest focal lenght you will have a much more versitle lens.

I grew up on a Canon AE-1 and was forced to learn how to make shutter speeds and aperture settings work together the old-fashoned way. Sometimes I still wish I had that camera because as good as the point-and-shoot DSLRs are, I still prefer the old light-meter-in-the-viewfinder dohickey.

Good luck with your new camera. The D80 was a great choice!


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Airboss,
You have touched on the part that confuses me the most. I think I have a mental block as to what it's used for and in what situation but I know from reading that I should be looking at as close to F/1 as possible (usually f/2.4), especially on the smaller lenses for macro shots. I appreciate you touching on this and telling me "in plain English" because it seems to be something I can remember, but have a problem applying it in the various situations. Thanks again for going over this as I will make sure I bookmark this thread so I can review it from time to time.

NobleEagle


----------



## Lmbevard (Mar 18, 2006)

Just to point out some things already pointed out, The 55 -200mm lens would be a telephoto lens only. If you want an all around lens look at one that is 18 - 120 or 200mm. Sigma, Tamron and Nikon all makes one, all pricey but then you have a wide angle to a telephoto lens all in one. Tamron makes an 18 - 250mm. For speed (the lower the f/ number, the larger the opening in the lens and the more light that gets through) your best to get a single focus length lens. Nikkor makes a 35mm f/2.0 lens that would be a great lens. By using a single focus, it forces you to really get involved with your subject by moving in and paying attention to what you are doing. Best plan if you are serious about really using the camera is to get a fast speed (low f/ number) short focal length zoom, like a 15 or 18 mm - 55, and a longer zoom like 50 - 300mm.

Good luck. I have owned a Nikon FE film camera for about 30 years with a few lenses and love the speed and feel of it. I recently looked at the newest Nikon the D300. Great camera, big price about $2400 but if your serious, well worth the cost. It is a serious camera for a serious price.


----------



## Airboss (Jul 14, 2007)

I'm not the best at explaining how aperture and shutter speed relate to exposure, but I did find this really cool simulator that will let you play around with different settings. Check it out here: Shutter and Aperture Simulator

Notice that when you use the widest aperture setting (lowest f number) that everything in the background is out of focus? And when you use the smallest aperture setting everything is in focus? Meanwhile your shutter speed is changing to compensate for the amount of light the lens is letting through. This is a good technique to use when taking portraits, macros, landscapes, etc.

Now, if your subject is in motion it is better to concentrate on using a fast shutter speed so that the subject doesn't blur. Your aperture setting will have to compensate for this and here is why it is better to have a lens that has a very wide aperture setting. This is also where the anology 'fast lens' comes in play. The wider you can set the aperture, the faster you can set the shutter speed to capture subjects in motion.

I know that this only touches on the subject and there is so much more to consider. Fast lenses are more expensive, but I think that they are worth the extra money in the long run. Since you mentioned brand names in your OP, I can tell you that Nikkor and Sigma lenses are VERY good, but I'm not sure about Tamron.

The greatest thing about DSLRs is that the film is free! I used to have to keep a notepad with me so that I could mark which frame had what settings so that I could learn how they affected the final outcome once the film was developed weeks later. With digital camers, all the exposure information is embedded into the picture. My advice is to snap several frames of the same subject with different settings for a while so you can see how they affect things for yourself. Learning this stuff is so much more fun when you don't have to pay to develop mistakes on a roll of film!


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Airboss said:


> I'm not the best at explaining how aperture and shutter speed relate to exposure, but I did find this really cool simulator that will let you play around with different settings. Check it out here: Shutter and Aperture Simulator
> 
> Notice that when you use the widest aperture setting (lowest f number) that everything in the background is out of focus? And when you use the smallest aperture setting everything is in focus? Meanwhile your shutter speed is changing to compensate for the amount of light the lens is letting through. This is a good technique to use when taking portraits, macros, landscapes, etc.
> 
> ...


You can say that again (about not having to pay for developing film while experiencing the learning curve). I appreciate all of the information you have offered and I welcome all the help. I have basically decided to stay with the "proven" selection and have narrowed it down to either the Nikkor (Nikon) or Sigma lenses. I had a Sigma with my Pentax SF-1 and was overwhelmed with it. Now my dad has a Sigma with his D80 and he seems to be happy with it too. I can't see wasting money on something just so I can snap pictures if I'm not going to be happy with them. I will wait if need be and "focus" (no pun intended) on getting the one that I will keep right from the start.

I have looked into what Dawn and some others suggested about the 18mm-? lens and have decided my first one will probably be the Nikon / Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR flavor. I am just worried that the "speed" may not be sufficient but I am sure it will still produce the quality that I am looking for. I will have to play with it once I make the move on it and see it's limitations and the environment it functions best in.

I would like to mention a resource I found that I really like (linked from somewhere mentioned in one of these posts) that is an AWESOME lens comparison site. It shows pictures with different model cameras, and whatever lens you choose. It shows "samples", reviews, pricing, and specifications about how good the lens is and what it can do. Check it out HERE. I have been putting a lot of mileage on that site.

Thanks again for all of your great suggestions and help!


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Another thought or two on the lens speed (aperture) question...

To boil it down to simplest terms, a large aperture (small number) let's in the most light, thus allowing a faster shutter speed, which is great for freezing objects in motion. The downside is a very shallow 'depth of field' (the distance range at which the eye precieves the photo to be in focus.

A small aperature (big number) makes for a very large depth of field, much more of the scene will be in focus, but it requires a longer shutter time which is bad for stopping motion or in low light.

Each situations has it's strengths and weaknesses for any given application. Neither is better or worse than the other in overall terms, but different tools for different jobs.

But here are a couple of other points to consider...

1. All the new DSLR's have adjustable ISO settings. When buying film in the old days, you had to pick a film speed suitable for the task at hand. With the digitals, you just dial-in the ISO equivilence you want. As with film, a higher ISO setting will create a grainier image, but the ability to dial-up that high speed goes a long ways towards neagating lens speed concerns.

2. Large aperature lenses make use of large glass elements. Sometimes plastic these days (







). The bigger those elements are, the harder they are to grind accurately. The quality of the 'glass' used also becomes more important, the bigger the element gets. This is where the dollars you spend on a lens really matter. On slower - read easier to manufacture - lenses, the difference between a really expensive and a more moderately priced lens is reduced significantly. Look at a fast, large aperature, lens and the difference between cheap and high-end is like night and day!

Considering the shots you are looking for (it does not sound like freezing action is going to be a priority), I would not put too much concern into finding a fast lens, but rather apply the money to a slower, but higher quality piece. And for those times where freezing action, or shooting in really low light is a requirement, just crank up the ISO setting.









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## swanny (Oct 31, 2007)

I own a D80. I also own three lenses that seem to cover my photo needs. they are - nikkor AF-S 18-135MM 3.5-5.6G ED
NIKKOR VR AF-S 70-300MM 4.5-5.6G ED and a Tokina wide angle lens SD 12-24MM F4 (IF) DX. I take a lot of photos. on our Alaska trip over 5000! are there better lenses out there, for sure. to me the bottom line is get the best lens you can afford.
imho if you spend money on a experimental lens you may not be happy with the results. and the money you spent on that lens could have been used to buy the better lens. its all about the lenses.


----------



## Scoutr2 (Aug 21, 2006)

I, too, am a Canon user. I have just two lenses that get me by in almost any situation. The one that stays on the camera most of the time is the 28-80 mm zoom lens, and I carry a 75-300 mm telephoto zoom. But I have to use a tripod or monopod with the telephoto. (Image stabilization is nice - but expensive!)

Mike


----------



## Hokie_PhD (Apr 1, 2008)

I also have a D80 which I got in December when I decided to jump into digital photography after years of 35mm. I basically went through what everyone here has talked about. After a lot of research and some soul searching, I decided to get the 18-200 VR Nikon lens. The reason being while the lens is fairly expensive, it's well made, has exceptional quality for the broad range, and is a great lens if you're only going to have one (or one with you).


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

I have a D100 and my standard lense is the Nikon 24-120 AF-S VR. I would have liked the 18-200, but for the price difference it was an easy decision. I have bought most of my lenses used at KEH.com and have been happy with them. I've had a Tamron lens and it was built like a tank, but it was also a little soft for my taste. Of course that can vary by model.

I currently have a Sigma 10-20, the aforementioned 24-120, and a Sigma 120-400. That gives a nice range.








VR is most important at long range, so if you are going to get it on one lense, do the telephoto. It's of little value at 10mm, so you don't have to worry about your wide angle lense having it.









Good luck shopping!


----------



## jasonrebecca (Oct 30, 2007)

Depending on when you purchased your Nikon you may want to take a look at there current promotion on lenses with a camera purchase:

Nikon Lens offers


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Well I'll try to make this as short as possible. After getting the camera my awesome dad decided to lend me one of his lenses until I could get the lens I wanted instead of wasting money. The lens I am using for now is a Sigma 18-200mm DC OS lens. 
My DW had her company picnic today at Busch Gardens Tampabay and here are some of the 436 pictures I took today:





























































I am VERY happy with the results and things can only get better. The pictures here were slightly modified so they would load quickly but the originals are big enough to print DECENT size pix and not lose any resolution.















THANKS TO ALL THAT MADE SUGGESTIONS! I APPRECIATE ALL THE HELP!


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Very Nice!


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Wow! Very impressive photos! Nice work.









Not sure I would want to share a picnic with thoses beasts, but then, who's going to tell them no?!

Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## Airboss (Jul 14, 2007)

Most impressive! I'm so glad that you are enjoying your new camera! I'm very jealous.


----------



## NobleEagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Thanks all but you have to see the one I think came out perfect...Once it loads to full size (it's a big pic so if you have dialup, be forewarned) click on it to FULL SIZE and scroll around....It's perfectly focused and the vibrant colors don't bleed. I can't believe how nice this came out on full auto.


----------

