Advice needed on camera lenses

[Boblobla]

I also highly recommend these books, they helped me a great deal:

http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-D..._bxgy_b_text_b

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by 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

Based on what you shot that at (even at such a high ISO), I can't see too many lenses that can shoot what you're imagining without a flash.

Here's the problem if you get a lens shooting at 200mm with that same photo: you'll need to shoot at about 1/200 (less if it has VR and you have steady hands or a mono/tripod). But because it's so dark in there, the photo (even if the lens shot at 2.8) will still be a challenging one. You also don't want to be shooting at 3200 ISO with your camera body either so the goal would also to be to shoot as low ISO as possible.

When there's not enough light... there's just not enough light. It seems to me a good option there is to use a flash (and not the one built into your camera) and/or try to get closer to the subject.

You could go the Photoshopping in RAW format route, but that's IMO a lot of effort to go into a photo when you can think of other ways to get a better photo in your viewfinder first.

If you really want to try that shot with another lens without a flash, I'd pick up a 50mm, f1.8 for a couple hundred bucks, get closer to the subject and possibly annoy a few people. Even if the lens doesn't work for that particular shot, it's still an excellent, cheap lens that can be used in all types of situations.

The 18-200mm is pretty pricey and if you're spending $800 already, you might as well hold out, bend over and buy a 70-200/2.8 for $2000 (or heck, you can get a Sigma version of that too for much less than the Nikon one).

[sketchyt]

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.

Way to encourage a photographer who only wants to learn more. But since you're the expert, feel free to share your photos since you're obviously a pro.

[AFireInside]

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 adjustablesettings. A light and simple P&S would be better for you.

You should go to a photography forum so you dont have to worry about posts that are clearly beneath you. Some people just arent cut out for posting on a normal forum with a lot of different people. A professional forum would be better for you.

WOW. Jump to conclusions much. The poster is asking advice and is learning like most of us here. If you have nothing worthwhile to add don't post.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep... definitely goiing to take my tripod with me to the next show. Not sure how it'll work out though. Have only used a tripod when taking pics on non-moving subjects. Might be a little more difficult when taking a pick of a dog and handler running around the show ring.

I think I might check into renting a 50mm F/1.8 lens and see how the pics turn out using that. There are better lens available to rent but whats the point if I could never afford to buy that lens. The whole point in renting, for me anyways, is to try out a lens that I might consider buying.

[Rerun]

Another poster on here suggested I go with a ~100mm prime lens.

That would be great... if they weren't do damn expensive. I checked out pricing and the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D is selling for $450 and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR sells for $800.

$450 for the 85mm isn't too bad of a price but is it worth is when I can get the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for $240? Is the extra 35mm really worth the extra $210?

Remember, I still want to get a decent telephoto lens for outdoor shooting of dog shows and other things and I want to keep my limit a $1000 tops.. preferably at $800 though.

Some others have suggested I go with a flash. Unfortunately thats really not an option as the dog handlers would probably get upset with me if I was using one and distracting the dogs.

Others have suggested I shoot in RAW. I tried that once and my computer slowed down to a crawl trying to process the pics. I have a laptop with 3GB of Ram memory. Is that enough?.... or was I doing something wrong? Maybe I was just using the wrong program to process the pics.. don't remember which program I used (I think I got it off the internet on a free download).

[Rerun]

One other thing...

I am definitely considering taking a class in digital photography. Any recommendations?

[Rerun]

Here's another pic of another show.. this one was held at the Big 4 bldg on the Stampede Grounds. Again, lighting isn't great but it was certainly better than the what it was in Lethbridge (see previous pic). The pic has been cropped to get a close-up of the two dogs (btw, the dog on the left is my dog. He got his champion title that weekend).



and here's a pic of an outdoor show (taken last summer at Spruce Meadows) where it would be great to have a decent telephoto lens.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One other thing...

I am definitely considering taking a class in digital photography. Any recommendations?

Man just get a point and shoot. Who takes a class?? Lol

Seriously though check with the camera store.

Www.thecamerastore.com

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Man just get a point and shoot. Who takes a class?? Lol

Seriously though check with the camera store.

Www.thecamerastore.com

Ya... you're right.. I should just accept my limitations and stick with a p&s. Some people are just too stupid to learn and its obvious to D Rojo that I'm one of those people. ... sigh.

P.S. Thanks for the heads up on the camera store class. I'll check it out.

[Boblobla]

Some of my favourite pictures I have were taken with my $100 50mm F1.8 lens. It is a super cheap, plastic lens but it takes awesome shots. I have a Canon but I am sure there is an equivalent for Nikon.

What is great about it is it makes you move to get the frame you want, so you learn how to position yourself to compose the shot you want.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Some of my favourite pictures I have were taken with my $100 50mm F1.8 lens. It is a super cheap, plastic lens but it takes awesome shots. I have a Canon but I am sure there is an equivalent for Nikon.

What is great about it is it makes you move to get the frame you want, so you learn how to position yourself to compose the shot you want.

Yep.. I think I'm leaning towards getting the 50mm F/1.8 and the 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 zoom. I think I should be able to use the 18-200 indoors if lighing is halfway decent and where lighting is poor, I'll switch to the 50mm and crop and enlarge using the computer.

As you said, I think the 18-200 sounds like a pretty good everyday walking around lens for the camera and should be good for almost any shooting situation except very long distance or action shots in poor light.

[Scotian Lotion]

I use Adobe Lightroom to develop my RAW images.

Shooting in RAW has nothing to do with whether or not you got your photo correct in the camera or not. Lightroom (and software like it) is the same as a Darkroom for film. It's where you develop your photos.
The artistic aspects of photography do not end after you release the shutter... I believe the development process is part of that as well. Shooting in RAW gives you a digital negative, with all of the light data there for you to draw from and create the best image you can, to your tastes, based on what you shot with your camera.

Shooting in Jpeg? Well, that's great too, and if you know what you want, you can dial in your camera to do all of the development within the camera itself, but I liken shooting in JPEG to be the same as taking a roll of film to the one hour photo, only they give you back your photos without the negatives. That's it that's all. Hope you're happy with it.

Here, since you like Dogs.
This is a photo I took back in September. It as mid afternoon, so the sun was high in the sky and wasn't giving me very great lighting for a striking image.
I shot in RAW and used Lightroom to bring out the colours I wanted... I could have done something similar with a JPEG, but the results are a lot more harsh.
Original RAW image, straight out of the camera on the left... Developed photo on the right.

This was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G, btw. @ ISO100, f/2 and 1/320 sec.
Looking back on this, as I was still relatively new to DSLR in September (and still am), I should have shot this at F/4 or F5.6, to give a bit more depth of field, cranked the ISO up to 800 and shot at one stop faster shutter speed to freeze the motion just a bit more. Either way, it turned out ok.

[Rerun]

That looks like a sweet program!

I agree with you about the artistic aspects too. I'm always messing around with my pics... cropping them, enlarging them, changing color... except I've always just used the edit feature on your std pic edit program that comes with your computer.

Have I ever been missing out on something. I've been driving around in the model t of editing programs while you all have been using the cadillac version.

[Scotian Lotion]

I also don't think you neeeeeeeed a photography course to achieve what you want to achieve. Put that money into your next lens.

You have the internet. Teach yourself. The information is out there, you just need to want it. Learn the basics, get on Google+ and add a bunch of photographers you like to your Circles and follow them. Add Fickr users as contacts for you to follow if you like their images. Check their EXIF data on their photos to see how their photos were taken... that can be an ok learning resource.

I have actually gone to the trouble to create some playlists on YouTube that feature the best learning videos that I have come across. I have broken them down by subject. Spend an evening, with your camera in your lap, going through them. Pause when something confusing comes up, play along with your camera... you'll learn a lot trust me. You'll learn more if you go out afterwards and shoot, shoot and shoot some more.

Here (I think i've posted this on here already):
Basics
Techniques

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

$450 for the 85mm isn't too bad of a price but is it worth is when I can get the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for $240? Is the extra 35mm really worth the extra $210?

Remember, I still want to get a decent telephoto lens for outdoor shooting of dog shows and other things and I want to keep my limit a $1000 tops.. preferably at $800 though.

Only you can decide that. One thing to consider though is that an 85mm 1.8 will blur out your background better than a 50 1.8.

You might want to consider some alternatives to the 18-200. The Tamron 18-270 is pretty well reviewed. Or you could save some money and get some more range with the 70-300, if you're willing to swap lenses with your 18-55.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

Only you can decide that. One thing to consider though is that an 85mm 1.8 will blur out your background better than a 50 1.8.

You might want to consider some alternatives to the 18-200. The Tamron 18-270 is pretty well reviewed. Or you could save some money and get some more range with the 70-300, if you're willing to swap lenses with your 18-55.

I checked out the Tamron 18-270. Looks like a very nice lens and price is certainly better than the Nikon 18-200 ($680 vs $800).
Definitely sounds like a lens worth considering! Thanks for the heads up.

From all the advice here, I think I might end up going with the Tamron 18-270 as an all-around indoor/outdoor lens, and also getting the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and then cropping to zoom in on the subject (after the fact when processing my pics).

I also might eventually end up with an 85mm 1.8 lens... but that would be further down the road. I can't afford to get everything at once.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I checked out the Tamron 18-270. Looks like a very nice lens and price is certainly better than the Nikon 18-200 ($680 vs $800).
Definitely sounds like a lens worth considering! Thanks for the heads up.

I went with the Nikon over the Tamron, but it was a tough call. Definitely see if you can try out the Tamron and check if the focus is fast enough for you. If you do go Nikon, get the II. For the price difference, you'll probably want the lens lock.

[mac_gurl]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One other thing...

I am definitely considering taking a class in digital photography. Any recommendations?

I took the one day class at mount royal for 8 hours, as well as the basic photography class at SAIT And then the advanced class (each course 3 hours x 6 weeks i think) The MR class was a good basic class that helped me get a basic understanding of how to use my slr. The SAIT class was more in depth, but I'm glad I had taken the day class, as I felt I was able to get more out of the SAIT class then my friends who had no experience.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Rerun]

As discussed, I have a Nikon 3100 with the std 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens and am looking for other lenses to increase the versatility of my set up.

Finally bought my first extra lens for this camera. yesterday. Ended going with the Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR lens. The price was right. Got it at Blacks for $250.

My next lens purchase will be the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G. Hopefully the combination of the 3 lenses will meet most of my needs.