Photography/Videography Discussion

[MedigoFlame]

Would like to ask you guys, if it'd be worth looking into a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens that's for sale at $600?

 

[Shaun]

Would like to ask you guys, if it'd be worth looking into a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens that's for sale at $600?

Not sure on the price they go for over there but that sounds about right.
My father in-law has one and I occasionally borrowed it when I had a D7100, it's not a bad lens by any means and takes a nice picture but it's getting older on the tech side.

There are other options also to look at, at the time I ended up getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which I found to be sharper and also had stabilisation that the Nikkor didn't have. I think Tamron also have a lens in the same range also.

That's not to talk you out of the Nikkor but just to say look at other options also. 👍

 

[35mm]

Would like to ask you guys, if it'd be worth looking into a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens that's for sale at $600?

That sounds like a fair price, yes.

But I'll say the same as Shaun: try looking at Sigma and Tamron's alternatives.

My first ever dSLR lens was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for my Nikon D200.
Construction quality wasn't that good, I must confess. But image quality was pretty much on par with the 17-55 (except, maybe, for distortion at the wide end). Smaller and lighter, too.
Older versions without optical stabilization (VC) should go for around $200.

 

[MedigoFlame]

Not sure on the price they go for over there but that sounds about right.
My father in-law has one and I occasionally borrowed it when I had a D7100, it's not a bad lens by any means and takes a nice picture but it's getting older on the tech side.

There are other options also to look at, at the time I ended up getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which I found to be sharper and also had stabilisation that the Nikkor didn't have. I think Tamron also have a lens in the same range also.

That's not to talk you out of the Nikkor but just to say look at other options also. 👍

That sounds like a fair price, yes.

But I'll say the same as Shaun: try looking at Sigma and Tamron's alternatives.

My first ever dSLR lens was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for my Nikon D200.
Construction quality wasn't that good, I must confess. But image quality was pretty much on par with the 17-55 (except, maybe, for distortion at the wide end). Smaller and lighter, too.
Older versions without optical stabilization (VC) should go for around $200.

Alright, I've been looking for a decent lens to replace the 18-55mm kit lens. I'll be using with with my D5100. Had a co-worker who suggested Sigma. I'll look into the other brands. People said the Nikkor was a bit heavy to handle, how do the others compare, weight wise?

 

[35mm]

Alright, I've been looking for a decent lens to replace the 18-55mm kit lens. I'll be using with with my D5100. Had a co-worker who suggested Sigma. I'll look into the other brands. People said the Nikkor was a bit heavy to handle, how do the others compare, weight wise?

Like I mentioned, the Tamron is significantly lighter than the Nikkor. Don't know the exact numbers.

 

[smuffyatfcp]

What would be a good general purpose telephoto lens. I'd like to primarily used it for motorsport or wildlife photography and after looking around anything up to 400mm should have the reach for most, if not all UK circuits. Sigma has pipped up on a few searches but wondering if the price cut to a Canon lens sacrifices performance and image quality.

The body would be a Canon 6D.

 

[Katiegan]

Looking for a bit of help here guys.

At the moment, I'm just a casual amateur photographer, I really only take photos of cars. I have a Canon 1200D with a 18-55mm lens, and I also have a 75-300mm lens for shooting at motorsport events and such. Yesterday I went to a car show, only using my 18-55mm lens as the 75-300mm wasn't needed. I decided to play around with the settings on my camera a little more, and lowered the aperture since I wanted some photos where the background was extra blurry and the car was in focus. But whenever I altered the aperture, my photos came out over-exposed. Even after altering the exposure, it seemed like nothing I did would change it. What can I do to get low aperture shots that aren't ridiculously over-exposed? I had to settle for some pretty standard shots in the end with not much background blur at all, which was quite disappointing.

 

[35mm]

Looking for a bit of help here guys.

At the moment, I'm just a casual amateur photographer, I really only take photos of cars. I have a Canon 1200D with a 18-55mm lens, and I also have a 75-300mm lens for shooting at motorsport events and such. Yesterday I went to a car show, only using my 18-55mm lens as the 75-300mm wasn't needed. I decided to play around with the settings on my camera a little more, and lowered the aperture since I wanted some photos where the background was extra blurry and the car was in focus. But whenever I altered the aperture, my photos came out over-exposed. Even after altering the exposure, it seemed like nothing I did would change it. What can I do to get low aperture shots that aren't ridiculously over-exposed? I had to settle for some pretty standard shots in the end with not much background blur at all, which was quite disappointing.

If I had to guess, I'd say that your ISO is locked at a high value.

Looking at the EXIF info in your most recent flickr shots, I may actually be right.

 

[Katiegan]

If I had to guess, I'd say that your ISO is locked at a high value.

Looking at the EXIF info in your most recent flickr shots, I may actually be right.

Any way I can change that? Or is it just part of the camera?

 

[35mm]

Any way I can change that? Or is it just part of the camera?

Sure. I'm not familiar with your camera (or even Canon), but it's one of those functions that I'm sure are right at hand (there may even be a hard button dedicated to it).

The values should range from 100 to 3200 (or 6400). Use ISO100 whenever possible and bump it in low-light situations.

Even better - if your camera has it - I'd recommend turning it to Auto mode.

 

[Katiegan]

Sure. I'm not familiar with your camera (or even Canon), but it's one of those functions that I'm sure are right at hand (there may even be a hard button dedicated to it).

The values should range from 100 to 3200 (or 6400). Use ISO100 whenever possible and bump it in low-light situations.

Even better - if your camera has it - I'd recommend turning it to Auto mode.

Ah, I see. I didn't know what ISO was so I didn't really touch it, but I'll try that out next time. After I couldn't figure out the aperture I set it to auto mode and left it at that. It wasn't too bad, but I did want a little extra blur in the backgrounds.

 

[35mm]

Ah, I see. I didn't know what ISO was so I didn't really touch it, but I'll try that out next time. After I couldn't figure out the aperture I set it to auto mode and left it at that. It wasn't too bad, but I did want a little extra blur in the backgrounds.

ISO is the sensitivity of the camera's sensor. A higher setting lets it gather more light, but with the downside of really noisy images and a drop in dynamic range. For more quality you'll want lower ISO.


Also, as a tip for some extra blur, you should look for a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens. It will make all the difference.

 

[TB]

I have a Canon 1200D with a 18-55mm lens, and I also have a 75-300mm

I have the 5 year old little brother to your setup (almost).

I wanted some photos where the background was extra blurry and the car was in focus. But whenever I altered the aperture, my photos came out over-exposed.

What can I do to get low aperture shots that aren't ridiculously over-exposed?

Whenever you adjust the aperture, shutter speed or ISO, you're affecting the other two at the same time. If you open up the aperture to isolate more, you either need to lower the ISO or speed up the shutter.

Example shots with camera settings, all taken with the kit 18-55 lens. Focal point was the Carrera GT badge.

f/5, 1 second, ISO 100

f/10, 4 seconds, ISO 100

f/32, 25 seconds, ISO 200

As you can see, the shutter had to be changed rather drastically to maintain the same exposure.

There's one thing I'd suggest, assuming you're not already doing it - learn to half-press the shutter release and pay attention to the exposure meter. If it's to the right of center, you're (typically) going to be over exposed and if it's to the left of center, it's (again, typically) going to be under exposed. That's not the say that sometimes you won't want it over or under exposed, but as a general rule, it should work fairly well.

And if you want uber-shallow depth of field, do what @35mm suggested and pick up a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

f/1.8, 1/4 second, ISO 100

 

[Turtle]

@Katiegan In addition to what @35mm & @TB have said, there are other ways you can affect the amount of blur in your photos. First: Get close. The distance between you and your subject has a huge impact on the depth of field. You can see that with TB's examples above; With a fast aperture of F/1.8 and little distance between him and the car, hardly anything is in focus, but if he had something ten feet away, much more of the image would be sharp.

Focal length also plays a big role in depth of field. Try taking a photo with the lowest aperture setting you can with your 18-55 at 18mm and again at 55mm. Even though the aperture is lower towards 18mm, you'll probably get more blur at 55mm. So next time you go to a show, try putting your 70-300 for a bit, if you have the room you may should (In theory) get closer to the blurriness you're looking for. I found my 85mm was really useful to me at the last car-based event I went to.

There are other factors that will affect depth of field, but they're not really relevant to you, I think, and this post is getting dangerously close to being really nerdy.

All that said, I'll also say that picking up a 50mm is a really good idea if you frequently find yourself looking for more of that sweet blur. Plus I'm a firm believer that prime lenses make you a better photographer, so I'm biased, I guess.

 

[Katiegan]

I have the 5 year old little brother to your setup (almost).


Whenever you adjust the aperture, shutter speed or ISO, you're affecting the other two at the same time. If you open up the aperture to isolate more, you either need to lower the ISO or speed up the shutter.

Example shots with camera settings, all taken with the kit 18-55 lens. Focal point was the Carrera GT badge.

f/5, 1 second, ISO 100

View attachment 576649

f/10, 4 seconds, ISO 100

View attachment 576650

f/32, 25 seconds, ISO 200

View attachment 576651
As you can see, the shutter had to be changed rather drastically to maintain the same exposure.

There's one thing I'd suggest, assuming you're not already doing it - learn to half-press the shutter release and pay attention to the exposure meter. If it's to the right of center, you're (typically) going to be over exposed and if it's to the left of center, it's (again, typically) going to be under exposed. That's not the say that sometimes you won't want it over or under exposed, but as a general rule, it should work fairly well.

And if you want uber-shallow depth of field, do what @35mm suggested and pick up a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

f/1.8, 1/4 second, ISO 100

View attachment 576652

I played around with the exposure meter a lot, but no matter how far right, left or centre it was, my photos were still over-exposed. I never changed the ISO though so I'm guessing that was the issue. And I wasn't keen on changing the shutter speed since I don't have steady hand at all nor did I have my tripod with me.

@Katiegan In addition to what @35mm & @TB have said, there are other ways you can affect the amount of blur in your photos. First: Get close. The distance between you and your subject has a huge impact on the depth of field. You can see that with TB's examples above; With a fast aperture of F/1.8 and little distance between him and the car, hardly anything is in focus, but if he had something ten feet away, much more of the image would be sharp.

Focal length also plays a big role in depth of field. Try taking a photo with the lowest aperture setting you can with your 18-55 at 18mm and again at 55mm. Even though the aperture is lower towards 18mm, you'll probably get more blur at 55mm. So next time you go to a show, try putting your 70-300 for a bit, if you have the room you may should (In theory) get closer to the blurriness you're looking for. I found my 85mm was really useful to me at the last car-based event I went to.

There are other factors that will affect depth of field, but they're not really relevant to you, I think, and this post is getting dangerously close to being really nerdy.

All that said, I'll also say that picking up a 50mm is a really good idea if you frequently find yourself looking for more of that sweet blur. Plus I'm a firm believer that prime lenses make you a better photographer, so I'm biased, I guess.

The show I went to on Sunday was very busy and the cars were quite close together so I think I would've struggled with the 70-300 lens, but I'll definitely keep that in mind for next time.

Thanks for all the help though guys, I really appreciate it. I'll have a look at buying a 50mm lens.

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Looking at a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for my 6D. Obviously the cannon lens would be a good choice, but for almost half the price would the Sigma be a good investment, and is there (if any) any quality drop in the sigma lens compared to the Canon?

 

[35mm]

Looking at a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for my 6D. Obviously the cannon lens would be a good choice, but for almost half the price would the Sigma be a good investment, and is there (if any) any quality drop in the sigma lens compared to the Canon?

You should be OK with modern Sigmas.

But don't take my word on it and try finding some good comparison reviews, since I don't have any experience with this type of lens.

Tamron also has a good option in this category, I think.

 

[Shaun]

@smuffyatfcp I can't speak for the Canon versions but yes the Sigma and Tamron versions offer great bang for the buck for Nikon.

I have the Tamron version for my Nikon D750 and it's a great lens that compares to the much dearer Nikon version well.
I can't see the situation being much different for Canon so as @35mm mentions due some research and if possible shoot with them before making your mind up.
Don't be put off with either without checking them out. 👍

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Thank you both. A store local to me has both lenses available to rent, so will look at getting both to look at. Another option would be to buy the Canon used, to be within £100-£150 of the sigma. Would buying used be a good option?

 

[Shaun]

Yep nothing wrong with a used lens especially if you can try it first. That's how I picked up my Nikon 24-70 saving a bucket load in the process.
If a store sells second hand stuff they will often provide a warranty of their own for it which does often make it a little dearer than a private sale but worth looking at.

 

[TB]

70-200mm f2.8

For reference, Adorama sells used lenses and has one rated E- for $899USD.

Barrel shows signs of wear and/or moderate usage. Lens glass may have some dust / spots that should not affect picture quality.

Shipping to the UK looks to be $65-113.

Better and worse condition lenses are also available. Not sure how any of those prices compare to what you can get locally.

 

[Turtle]

Would buying used be a good option?

I don't have much to add about these particular lenses that hasn't been said before but I wanted to say that buying used is always worth considering. As you know, photography gear is expensive but most digital cameras and autofocus lenses depreciate pretty rapidly so you can save yourself quite a bit of cash by buying used so long as you're careful.

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Wow, thanks for all the information guys has been very helpful 👍. Found one in london (used with IS) for 795 which after a little research would be a little better than a new Sigma.

 

[Azuremen]

Wow, thanks for all the information guys has been very helpful 👍. Found one in london (used with IS) for 795 which after a little research would be a little better than a new Sigma.

Is that the F/2.8 or F/4? Feels cheap for the F/2.8 IS L but I haven't checked used prices in a while.

Sigma can be an excellent value for the money, which the general weakness being that Sigma has to reverse engineer the AF system as Canon doesn't release details on it. The results in sometimes lackluster AF but generally not a major issue in all the instances I've seen.

Depending on what you'll be shooting, there is the Canon 135mm F/2L, which is what I went with over a 70-200mm F/2.8 zoom due to weight/cost. An excellent lens if you can handle the kind unusual focal length.

As for buying used, I've had virtually no issues with buying used lenses. And often they don't depreciate much after the initial drop in value from new to used.

@Katiegan - While a 50mm F/1.8 (spring for Canon's STM version) is the best bang for the buck, Sigma's 30mm F/1.4 A is a bit faster/sharper and provides a more "natural" focal length on a crop sensor. There is also, for a fair bit more (though really quite fair for what you get) money, the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 A which is nothing short of excellent optically if you intend on sticking with a crop sensor for sometime.

Alternatively, you can mount old Pentax screw mount lenses, along with old Nikon lenses, to your Canon body with simple, cheap adapters. Which means you can find some thrift store 50mm F/2 for a few bucks and spend $10 on an adapter and see how you feel about it.

Just be careful you don't end up buying an absurd amount of vintage lenses and/or camera bodies like a few of us have.

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Turns out the deal I found was for the F4 and not the 2.8 so i ended up getting the sigma 2.8. Autofocus seems quick and accurate in the few test shots I've taken the lens seems nice and crisp. Definitely worth the 600-1000 in savings vs a new mk1 or mk2 Canon lens

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Sorry for the double post.

Does anyone have any experience with the EOS 50mm 1.8 version II or the STM version. Online reviews have said its great quality glass for the price and being 10x cheaper than the 1.2 L series it sounds rather tempting.

 

[Azuremen]

Sorry for the double post.

Does anyone have any experience with the EOS 50mm 1.8 version II or the STM version. Online reviews have said its great quality glass for the price and being 10x cheaper than the 1.2 L series it sounds rather tempting.

The STM is the better lens, if just because of the focusing system. I used the II quite a bit before switching to the 50mm F/1.4 USM (which I loathe now) and generally recommend the Canon 50mm F/1.8 over it because of the price and quality.

But even on my Canon bodies, I typically use an old Pentax/Takumar 55mm F/2 or a Nikkor 55mm F/1.2 from the 60's. Manual focus and aperture only but certainly rewarding.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

I recently got a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for Sony E Mount and it's so awesome! It also came with 3 filters and some other stuff from the seller. I can't wait to try them at an event this weekend.

 

[smuffyatfcp]

Anyone have any recommendations on a backpack style camera bag that would be able to hold a 6d with 70-200 f2.8 a 25-105 f4 and a 50mm 1.8? Bag could have more lens slots that the lenses I've listed as I plan to expand my lens collection slowly but surely but not necessary. Also the cheaper the better but dont mind spending a little extra for better quality 👍

 

[Sprite]

Just found this Kodak Duaflex Original UK version in a box of books at home. It must have been either my Grandads or some other relative.

It's in perfect working order and I've just cleaned all the lenses. The mirror for viewing is a little rotted but this won't effect the images.

Has anyone here got any experiance with this camera or similar who would like to part some wisdom.