Nikon Lens help

Forums › Digital Imaging › Nikon Lens help

1 | 2

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1300434 8-May-2015 09:21

lol sorry

alasta

6702 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1300519 8-May-2015 10:33

throbb:
alasta: The 18-140mm is better than the 18-105mm not just because of the extra range but also because it has a metal mount and slightly better sealing.

I think I am going to go for the 18-140mm, the reviews are pretty good for it. I am also considering getting a 30 or 50mm prime lens for when I'm in a church or other low light places.

Do you need to shoot moving subjects in low light? If not then the VR on the 18-140 will be just as useful as the faster aperture on the 35mm prime - either way you get about two stops of extra exposure.

I have both the 35mm f/1.8 and the 18-140. I rarely use the 35mm, but it is useful for occassions when I need to freeze motion in marginal lighting conditions, or if I need extra DOF control.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1300863 8-May-2015 16:37

alasta:

Do you need to shoot moving subjects in low light? If not then the VR on the 18-140 will be just as useful as the faster aperture on the 35mm prime - either way you get about two stops of extra exposure.

For shooting moving subjects in low light, VR won't help much at all. If you don't keep an eye on what you're doing you'll lose shots to motion-blur which might have been okay if you'd simply boosted ISO with VR off, especially at wide-ish focal lengths.
I sometimes shoot music events (my son plays). I generally need 1/100th to 1/200th to freeze motion of performers on stage. They are not head-banging rockers. VR does not help. Motion-blur might be a plus for composition sometimes - but more often it's not.
VR is great - but not as much of a cure-all as some would have you believe. Often not useful at wide focal length (motion-blur as above), not useful with a tripod (with some exceptions), not useful when panning motion. It sucks batteries, sometimes causes significant image quality degradation if used without allowing it to stabilise first (half-pressing the shutter or using the AF-ON button a second or three before releasing the shutter), and if you're going to get pixel-peepingly fussy, probably produces enough image degradation to warrant turning it off when you're safely over slowest hand-held shooting speeds.

As for the 35mm f1.8G dx nikkor, it's a terrific lens for the price and optical performance, just as the 50mm f1.8 G (and older D) are for FX. How useful though is another question... I don't use my 50mm much on FX. It tends to stay in my camera bag because it doesn't weigh enough to bother me.
For DX, I'd recommend the 50mm f1.8 "G" though. It has smoother out of focus blur and is better at wide apertures than the older "D" version, and the field of view (= 75mm on FX) starts getting useful for portraits etc.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1300884 8-May-2015 17:19

He said if not

alasta

6702 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1301008 8-May-2015 22:07

Yes, I think my post was misinterpreted.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1301055 9-May-2015 08:49

alasta: Yes, I think my post was misinterpreted.

Yes it was mis-read by me, a "mis-reply" sent, then I read your post again properly and edited what I'd said rather than deleting the entire post. I thought I may as well leave it there WRT comments on VR/IS not being a cure-all, nor a free lunch.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1301071 9-May-2015 09:24

and i need to add not all VR is the same.

I have a lens that CAN give perfectly sharp images at 300mm at 1/8s!!!

And another would struggle at 1/15 at 105mm

1 | 2