Advice needed on camera lenses

[Rerun]

I own a Nikon D3100 with a 18-55mm f-3.5-5.6 lens with AutoFocus and Vibration Reduction.

I have found this lens to be limited in two ways.

#1 - In some indoor action shots where lighting is poor I have a difficult time getting enough shutter speed to prevent blurring.

#2 - Doesn't have much zoom capability thus I have to "zoom in" after the fact by editing photos to get a close up of the subject. This leads to blurry/grainy photos if I zoom in too much.

Most of my indoor shots will require some type of zoom function where the subject is 50 ft away and I want to get a close-up shot. Sometimes lighting may be poor (ie. indoor area such as the Stampede Big 4 blgd) so I would like to have a good (low) f-stop... but then again I'm not willing tp pay thousands of dollars to get a professional type lens.

Outdoor shots can vary from 50-200 ft.


So I am considering getting one or two of the following..

A. 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 lens with AF and VR - $400
B. 18-200mm f-/3.5-5.6 lens with AF and VR - $800
C. 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 lens with AF and VR - $400
D. ?

-Go with the 18-105 + the 70-300?

-Go with just the 18-200?

-Get a fixed 50mm lens with a lower f-stop than the above lenses have and then get one of the above zoom lenses? I see Nikon has 50mm f/1.8 thats about $200.

-Something else?

Whats your opinion on the above lenses?

I really don't want to spend much more than $800 in total for one or more lenses.

[mac_gurl]

I have a cheap fixed 50 mm for my canon, and I think it takes great photos!
I also have the 70mm to 200mm, and think it takes great photos as well, but I do think I'd get more use out of a 18mm - 200mm lens.

Be sure to check http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ for the lens. I got some great deals through them.

[Russic]

I'm very similar to mac_gurl. I have a fixed 50mm canon that I use for low light situations and it works great. You lose all the versatility of course, but the trade off is cost and light performance. My 18-200 is a lens I adore, but in poor lighting situations it's almost not worth bringing out of the bag (my body doesn't do well in higher iso's).

My advice is go 50mm and the 18-200. I know it exceeds your budget by a couple of hundred, but I'd rather hold off on the purchase for a couple of months than go without one of them.

[ah123]

My sister-in-law shoots with a 18-200 on her D90 and I really don't like the results from that lens (and she's a pretty good photographer). I have the 70-300VR and it is a great lens for outdoors.

The lenses you mentioned will give you poor results in low light, unless you bump up the ISO on your camera (or use a speed light if you are close enough)

You might want to look at a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Sigma equivalent (you can pick them up used for about $350-400) or a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 if you can find it, and combine that with the 70-300 VR.

Good luck.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

-Go with the 18-105 + the 70-300?

Don't do this one. You already have an 18-55, and 55-70 isn't really much of a gap. You always want to keep your weight down.

As for what you should get... I can't really say. You need to decide what compromise you're willing to make. Fast, long and cheap: pick two.

Edit: Your best best is probably an ~100 mm prime.

[Boblobla]

I have an 18-200 for my Canon and it is a great "vacation" lens. It is very versatile and is works awesome for landscapes and portraits.

Another huge plus is you are not changing lenses and running the risk of getting dirt/dust in your camera body.

I also have a 50mm f1.8 for low light situations.

It is going to be tough if you are trying to get fast shutter speeds in low light situations with any lens. I would suggest playing with your ISO as well, even going up to an ISO of 400 you don't have much noticeable noise in the picture. I am pretty sure it is called noise, Regulator would know better.

[Rerun]

Stopped by Saneal Camera last night to look at some lenses. Tried out the 200mm zoom and the 300mm zoom. The 200mm was definitely lighter and shorter than the 300. I definitely liked the zoom capability of the 300 but it felt cumbersome to me (felt heavy mounted on the camera due to its length). Not sure I would want to be lugging it around on my camera as an everyday type indoor/outdoors lens.

Reading all the advice here, has made me start leaning towards the 50mm f/1.8 as a low light indoor lens and the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 as an all-around everyday type lens which could also be used indoors if lighting conditions permit (can't be any worse than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that I have now and use indoors... might even be better since I'll be able to zoom in on subject that are further away and won't have to use the computer program to edit and zoom in on far away subjects).

If I go this way, not sure what I'll do with the 18-55mm lens that I have now... I assume that it'll probably get stuffed into a drawer and never used again.

In the meantime, I'll try the suggestion of bumping up my ISO to 400 for those poor light indoor shots where its not practicle to use a flash. I wish I had thought of that when I was in Lethbridge at a dog show in November. It was in an arena and the lighting was the sh*tz. I had my camera on auto and the pics turned out awfull. The camera defaulted to a shutter speed of about 1/60 and pics were blurry (was taking pics of running dogs) and the pics were dark too.... all around just plain crappy.

Edit: Just reviewed some of the pics I took on auto... ISO in a lot of cases was set automatically to 3200 due to the poor light conditions. Focal length was 45-55mm and shutter speed defaulted to 1/60. F stop was 5.3 to 5.6

[Diabloito Rojo]

You should get a point and shoot so that you don't have to worry about all the settings on a DSLR. Some people just aren't cut out for learning how to use a camera with lots of adjustable settings. A light and simple P&S would be better for you.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Diabloito Rojo

You should get a point and shoot so that you don't have to worry about all the settings on a DSLR. Some people just aren't cut out for learning how to use a camera with lots of adjustable settings. A light and simple P&S would be better for you.

Why do you say that? Point and shoot cameras are very limited in their performance in less than ideal conditions. Why on earth would you think that the answer to my question is to go to a camera that is even less versatile than what I have now?

I have a couple of point and shoots.. I wanted something better.. thus I went to the Nikon D3100.. and even the Nikon with its std lens pkg isn't meeting my requirements/expecations... thus my quest for better lenses.

[Diabloito Rojo]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Why do you say that? Point and shoot cameras are very limited in their performance in less than ideal conditions. Why on earth would you think that the answer to my question is to go to a camera that is even less versatile than what I have now?

I have a couple of point and shoots.. I wanted something better.. thus I went to the Nikon D3100.. and even the Nikon with its std lens pkg isn't meeting my requirements/expecations... thus my quest for better lenses.

Because you're using it as a P&S. Instead of learning how to use even the most basic settings, you're blaming the equipment and looking to upgrade it to solve your problems.

If you can't even bother to read the user manual or ask for help with the settings before looking to upgrade the lens, there's not much hope for you with a more advanced camera. Especially since the D3100 is a poor choice of a camera for someone who wants to use it like a P&S.

[Rerun]

The problem is the poor lighting conditions and the limiting factor of the lower f-stop on the lens. It doesn't let enough light in... particulary when the shutter speed is higher than 1/60.
Sure.. I could of bumped up the ISO to 400 but I didn't think of it. I have experience with slr cameras... but those were film cameras and I would just go out and buy ISO 400 film for indoor shooting. Didn't think about doing that on my digital slr... my bad.
I'm not a complete neophite when it comes to slr's.

[Rerun]

Also bumping up the ISO doesn't solve all my problems. My other problem is the 18-55mm doesn't allow me to get enough of a close up of the subject when shooting at distances... thus I am forced to enlarge using a computer re-sizing program.

[firebug]

I have not used a digital SLR (still have a collection of Nikkor AI-S glass on the shelf), but wouldn't a 50mm be a little long on a DX frame?

Are fast prime 35's available inexpensively that would provide a more useful indoor angle of view?

Using an 85mm on a FX frame (the approximate 50mm DX equivalent) would be pretty restrictive on the more intimate type of shooting that indoor work often requires.

[Rerun]

Here's an example of what I am talking about.

Light conditions are poor and subject is too far away for the std 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens to handle well.

Focul length: 55mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Shutter speed 1/60s
ISO: 3200

[SebC]

Rerun... maybe you can rent a lens from The Camera Store or Vistek and find one you like that way? Don't have time to look through their rental catalogues for you right now but based on your photo (if it's uncropped) I think my suggestion of a ~100ish prime is still a good one.

Also, why do you have a date stamp? Your photo files have that info embedded anyways without making is a mess of your photo.

[Rerun]

Good idea about the rental. You're right about the date stamp.. I turned it off a few weeks ago.

The pic is uncropped.

[Scotian Lotion]

If you're shooting dog shows, I would suggest the newly announced 85mm 1.8G.

If you need another general purpose fast lens, then the 35mm 1.8G is the ticket. Great ofr landscapes, architecture, street photography and indoors. True to life perspective on your D3100.


I would suggest the following settings for shooting a dog show:

Spot Metering. Take your reading right off a single focus point.
Shoot in Manual. Try to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower on a D3100. Dial in an aperture of f/2.8 or f/4 (assuming you have an f/1.8 lens). Take a few test shots after dialing in a correct exposure, after taking a reading off of the handler or dog. Once you get it dialed in, leave it.
Focus mode should be in 'C' (continuous)
Focus points should be a single point... not 3D or Auto or any of that crap. Just use a single focus point and track your subject (the handler or the dog) through the view finder. Never use the Live View screen. Get good at panning through the viewfinder.

Finally... shoot RAW and get your hands on a copy of Lightroom or whatever other RAW processing software you prefer. Shooting RAW gives you a lot more options to develop the photo.

Another option, which was already mentioned, would be a good speed light. Since the background environment of that dog show is drab, depressing and bombed out, the speed light would let you drown out the environment completely if you could get a little closer. There aren't many ways to make any pictures in that monochromatic arena look good when you're shooting a bunch of monochromatic dogs, lol.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Scotian Lotion

Another option, which was already mentioned, would be a good speed light. Since the background environment of that dog show is drab, depressing and bombed out, the speed light would let you drown out the environment completely if you could get a little closer. There aren't many ways to make any pictures in that monochromatic arena look good when you're shooting a bunch of monochromatic dogs, lol.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. The walls appear to be close enough that you'd get some rather icky shadows with on-camera flash, with off-camera being a bit complex and perhaps unpractical for moving targets. Plus, I'm not sure how much the dogs and their handlers would appreciate it.

A longer, fast lens may be the better route to achieve subject isolation.

[Scotian Lotion]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not sure that's a good idea. The walls appear to be close enough that you'd get some rather icky shadows with on-camera flash, with off-camera being a bit complex and perhaps unpractical for moving targets. Plus, I'm not sure how much the dogs and their handlers would appreciate it.

A longer, fast lens may be the better route to achieve subject isolation.

Yea, I know flashes are tricky and a single speed light isn't going to do much if you can't get close. I was just trying to show a way to blow out that nasty arena environment, but you're right... not realistic in this scenario. Handlers and Dogs would probably hate getting flashed at point blank range as they run by the OP's side of the bleachers, lol

[Boblobla]

A tripod would help as well, it will let you lower the shutterspeed a few stops but still not getting much motion blur. Sometimes a bit of motion blur makes a shot better as well when the background is sharp.