Deciding between 2 cameras - my list of pros & cons but which matter most?

[OreoCookie]

Neither of those lenses will be amazing for what you are planning on shooting. The 50mm will be decent for portraits, but I personally like a longer lens to flatten things out a little more.

I find 50 mm quite reasonable and a good focal length to start.

I tried to shoot architecture for a short while with a 30mm and a 50mm and wasn't happy with the results.

You're right. But as walk-around lens, the 35 mm is actually quite decent.

Neither lens should be great for macro photography (without something like a reverser ring). With those lenses you will likely be ~1:7 at best. Real macro lenses hit 1:1. Basically you can probably get a whole cell phone in the frame at max magnification.

Yup. On the other hand, dedicated macro lenses are more expensive, so they may be step 2 instead of step 1. Tokina, for instance, has a 35 mm macro. Or you could have a look at Tamron's new 60 mm macro which is a little longer than the 50 mm.

On the other hand, the normal lenses are a lot brighter, giving you extra leeway when taking pictures in dark environments.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

What I did, was compare photos taken by 3 lenses (D90 kit, 35mm 1.8, and 50mm 1.8 on pixel-peeper. This is probably a rookie way to explore which lens may be best for me, but I am a very visual person and need to SEE things. What I found was that I loved almost every shot taken with the 50mm and can see myself taking similar photos. The 35mm kind of seemed in the middle of the range where I'd like to be, not quite wide enough and not shallow enough either. After reading Ken Rockwell's glowing review of the 35, it would be hard to pass up but if it's not right with me then it just isn't right.

I may now focus my attention on a wider lens for the landscape shots, maybe in the 18-24 range and go with that and the 50mm?

I completely understand the thought process that I should go with the kit lens and determine from there what I'd need, but with my budget, I see it almost as a few hundred dollar trial period to see what I DON'T need and that is hard to justify quite honestly.

Edit: @Phrasikleia, point taken about KR

 

[nutmac]

While I agree with AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G not being a good portrait lens (especially for very noticeable barrel distortion), AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G is a very fine for the purpose (and relatively affordable). Due to 1.5x crop, 50mm (75mm equivalent) is close enough to ideal portrait focal length range (85-135mm) while giving you a bit of flexibility in getting a group shot as well as low lighting photography (thanks to f/1.4 max aperture).

If you can stretch the budget, AF-S Micro 105mm f/2.8G VR ($900) is probably the best portrait/macro lens on Nikon's line up, followed by AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ($500).

As for the wide, IMO, AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is the best wide angle lens ever made. And I say that as a Canon shooter. At $1800, it is very expensive lens. AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ($800) may be closer to your budget, although still expensive.

 

[ArtandStructure]

I am not sure I would recommend the D3000. It uses the older 10MP CCD sensor which is the same as in my D80. It will provide less image quality than the D5000/D90 (both using a newer generation 12MP CMOS sensor) and that cost savings would not be worth it IMO. The D5000/D90 sensor performs significantly better than the D3000 sensor especially in terms of noise.

I have read the D3000 uses a sensor "similar to" the D80, but I have not read "the same", so I don't know if that means performance or resolution or some combination of the two. Regardless, image quality is a combination of the sensor and the camera's image processing. I doubt the D3000 has 3 year old image processing. That said, I must say I love my D90 but the noise performance isn't as "dramatic" as everyone makes it out to be. Let me caveat that, and allow me to explain.

I had a D40 and on rough comparisons between the two I would say the D90 does indeed perform better, in part because there is some improvement in the noise itself (seemingly chromatic improvement) but also in part because the higher pixel density creates a finer "grain" of noise. That is, if both images are view the same physical size the D90 looks better in part because the random pixels are smaller and "blend" better. When viewed at 100% the noise performance on the D90 is better but not dramatically so. I was confident with the D40 up to ISO 400 and ISO 800 only when strictly controlled. I get a stop better on nthe D90 (800 and 1600 respectively).

Now, granted the D90 also has twice the pixel density of the D40, which should work in the D40's favor, so I will fully admit the improved noise performance over a camera with half the pixel density is impressive. I never had a D80 so perhaps the noise performance between the D90 and D80 is more dramatic. Nonetheless I would expect the noise performance of the D3000 to fall somewhere between the D40 and D90 due to these factors, which should outpace the D80.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[Ruahrc]

I have read the D3000 uses a sensor "similar to" the D80, but I have not read "the same"...

I see a lot of references to "similar" or "tweaked" sensor too but I haven't seen any definitive evidence. Just people in forums saying so maybe because they believe that because it's a newer camera they had to improve on everything somehow. I can easily see an improved or tweaked image processing algorithm, but it is costly and impractical to tweak the sensor hardware design on every revision. They use the same sensor in so many cameras because they can produce many of them making it cheaper, then use it in several grades of camera resulting in wider sales. It would be too expensive if they had to produce a different sensor for each camera body they made. Maybe some changes in the A/D hardware are possible but again I have not seen any evidence for or against this.

However, the bottom line has been that overall the noise performance of the D3000/40x/60/80 (all using the "same" sensor) are all generally very close to each other. This is because they're operating on the "same" base sensor, which likely has been designed for near optimum (i.e. theoretical) performance at the outset. You cannot really improve on it substantially until you go to a new design. Maybe a subtle difference here or there depending on the image processing, but you need to move to a newer generation sensor design (i.e. the CMOS one in the D5000/90/300(s)) in order to get substantial improvements in noise. And your D90 experience seems about right, a full stop of clean improvement, 1.5 to maybe 2 stops "equivalent performance" improvement.

I was just trying to suggest that if the OP has the budget for a higher grade camera which uses the newer generation sensors, it would be worth the money to get one rather than go back to the previous gen sensor tech.

Ruahrc

 

[OrangeCuse44]

Assessing my situation for the one millionth time, I think going back down to a lower model body to save some money and grabbing better glass may be the best move here. Although I didn't love the D5000 with the screen, I think I can look past that as long as the shots I get are dynamite (thats all that matters anyway, right?)

My new plan (please tell me if I'm crazy) - Buy a lesser body such as the D5000 and pair it with these 2 lenses:

1. For portrait and closer shots including foliage - 50mm 1.8
2. Landscape and architecture - 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor

 

[nutmac]

My new plan (please tell me if I'm crazy) - Buy a lesser body such as the D5000 and pair it with these 2 lenses:

1. For portrait and closer shots including foliage - 50mm 1.8
2. Landscape and architecture - 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor

Correct me if I am wrong (I am a Canon guy), but I think D5000 lacks in-body focus motor and therefore won't be able to auto focus with AF 24mm f/2.8 D.

Even if it did, I am not sure if I would buy 24mm f/2.8D, which is okay, but so so lens at best.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

Correct me if I am wrong (I am a Canon guy), but I think D5000 lacks in-body focus motor and therefore won't be able to auto focus with AF 24mm f/2.8 D.

Even if it did, I am not sure if I would buy 24mm f/2.8D, which is okay, but so so lens at best.

That is correct, but the 24mm is an AF lens, so it would work.

 

[SelfMadeCelo]

Correct me if I am wrong (I am a Canon guy), but I think D5000 lacks in-body focus motor and therefore won't be able to auto focus with AF 24mm f/2.8 D.

Even if it did, I am not sure if I would buy 24mm f/2.8D, which is okay, but so so lens at best.

You're right. I don't think the 50mm f/1.8 will auto focus either. The f/1.4 will though.

 

[nutmac]

That is correct, but the 24mm is an AF lens, so it would work.

If Nikon body lacks in-body focus motor, which I think includes D40, D60/D60x, D3000, and D5000, it would be able to autofocus only with AF-S and AF-I lenses. AF lenses, even though the name suggests autofocus, require in-body focus motor.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

If Nikon body lacks in-body focus motor, which I think includes D40, D60/D60x, D3000, and D5000, it would be able to autofocus only with AF-S and AF-I lenses. AF lenses, even though the name suggests autofocus, require in-body focus motor.

I looked it up and you're right. What a painstaking process this is!

 

[nutmac]

I looked it up and you're right. What a painstaking process this is!

Not to bring Canon this late into the game, Canon is more affordable platform for building high performance system.

My friend is a Nikon guy and he is using D5000. After building up his Nikon system, he compiled this top 10 list, what he considers high performance AF-S lenses. FYI, he owns 14-24mm f/2.8G, 50mm f/1.4G, and 105mm f/2.8G.

1. AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED ($1800)
2. AF-S Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR ($900)
3. AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR ($2100)
4. AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED ($1900)
5. AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D ED-IF ($1500)
6. AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED ($550)
7. AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G ($450)
8. AF-S DX NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF ($1350)
9. AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ($200)
10. AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED ($800)

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'd go ahead and get the D90 and the best lens you can afford. Look, I'm a Nikon user, but even I think it's ridiculous that they haven't made AF-S versions of some of their cheaper and more utilitarian lenses. They'd make a killing selling the 50 f/1.8 if there was an AF-S version. It's a fast and sharp prime, and it's price should attract low end camera body purchasers.

Either way, just get the D90 and whatever kit lens you like (be it an 18-55 or an 18-105) and the 50 f/1.8 for now. Then if things progress and you really enjoy photography as much as you thought you would, you can buy essentially any Nikkor you like to suit whatever need you feel you have at that point.

The kit 18-xx lenses paired with a fast 50 are a good place to start for virtually anyone learning DSLR photography on an APS-C body.

I've spent thousands on Nikkor glass (I currently shoot through a 50f/1.4 AF-S G, 27-70 f/2.8 G, and 70-200 f/2.8 G. I've got plans to purchase a 105 f/2 DC lens soon as well. I use them all on a D700. I started a few years ago with a Pentax K10D and an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, 50 f/1.4, and 28-200 f/4-5.6. I did pretty well for myself with that kit, and as a beginner I didn't find them limiting at all. The main thing I get from my new Nikon kit that the Pentax wasn't giving me is deadly accurate and fast AF performance, a little bit extra sharpness, build quality, and low light performance.

That sounds like a lot, but trust me, I found ways to make my newbie gear sing before I ever thought of spending the money I have on nicer equipment.

SLC

 

[OrangeCuse44]

I'd go ahead and get the D90 and the best lens you can afford. Look, I'm a Nikon user, but even I think it's ridiculous that they haven't made AF-S versions of some of their cheaper and more utilitarian lenses.

This is what is causing me most of the headaches during this process, nothing is falling into place in terms of compatible lenses.

Not to bring Canon this late into the game, Canon is more affordable platform for building high performance system.

I actually started this journey off thinking I was going with the Canon T1i because of this reason amongst a few others. I went to the store on Saturday to handle the T1i and both Nikon D5000 and the D90. The Canon just felt uncomfortable gripping it compared to the Nikon which is why I started down the Nikon path. I guess I'll go back again to handle the Canon to see what it feels like one more time.

 

[iTiki]

What the heck, here is my $.02....

Nikon D90 body

Nikkor 16-85. I love mine. 16 at the wide end is a big improvement over the 18-55 or 18-105. At the top, 85 is even a bigger improvement over the 18-55. Almost all agree the image quality of the 16-85 is better than the kit 18-105. The only drawback is the speed. It has been fast enough for me 95% of the time and the VR helps with that, too.

Nikkor 35, 1.8 for when you need the speed. At only $200., this is a must have.

I thought I needed something long, so I have the 70-300 and it has worked out great when needed. However, it is the least used lens in my kit. I would wait and see what you really need before getting anything longer than the 85.

 

[ArtandStructure]

Additionally, am I at any disadvantage buying a prime lens as compared to a zoom lens? Everything I read states using a prime lens involves "moving your feet" to get the shot you want, but how much does this matter? Thanks!

I find zooms encourage me to lazily fiddle with various focal lengths rather than just shoot. This is largely a factor of my own desire to explore all my options in my own obsessive way, but it also "gets in my way" of that subtle, ephemeral and immediate connection with the picture taking process and camera as extension of the person. That said, having several primes takes time to swap lenses on the fly and could mean lost shots or a broken workflow.

On cropped sensors I would suggest going with an 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-200mm zoom. Both cost very little, give a combined range to cover just about anything, and after shooting for 6 months or a year you may have some better idea what focal lengths you prefer and whether a prime is right for you.

For myself I purchased both lenses for my D40 3 years ago and after some time realized I never liked anything I shot between 18 and 55mm...only the extremes of that lens, the 18 and 55mm themselves. I did find I enjoyed most of the range of the 55-200mm, though usually 55, 80 and 200mm specifically. It is one of my 2 favorite lenses. I recently purchased an 80-200 2.8 and will see whether I feel like replacing the 55-200 with it altogether.

I also purchased a Tokina 11-16mm lens, knowing I like wides (and necessary for my shooting in Glacier National Park), which is now my other favorite lens, and when selling my D40 and kit lens I did not replace the 18-55mm range in my setup.

I do have a 50mm 1.8, which is sharp, fun and fast, but I generally find the lines it produces with a crop sensor camera to be stagnant, flat and generally uninteresting. I thought about trying a "normal" 35mm or so on the crop sensor, and while 35mm would also translate well to full frame when I get there, I thought it still seemed a hair stagnant and flat on crop. I opted to try a 28mm prime instead. I am not fully decided on this lens yet bt I am happy with the results as a "normal" on cropped sensors. It is a hair wide but more dynamic to me. I also tried the 28mm because 24-28mm works well for me for macro using a reversing ring...and the older Nikon lens I purchased has an aperture ring which makes reversing easier.

Still, I am carrying 4 lenses between the 11-16, 28, 50 and 55-200 (or 80-200). I am happier shooting with set lengths I know I like, thus simplifying my process to focus more on the image itself, but I'd still like to narrow it down further.

If/when I go full-frame I will sell the 11-16 and get a 20mm prime instead (13.33mm crop equivalent but smaller, lighter, simpler), use the 80-200mm and then either 1 or 2 of 28, 35 or 50mm. I think the 80-200 2.8 is essential and so versatile I just don't see how I'd be doing myself any favors trying to split it into a few primes.

For examples, all the photos on my site list the focal lengths used.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[OrangeCuse44]

I'm posting this out of pure excitement so I apologize for the uselessness of this post. Over the past few weeks of mind numbing research in my quest to purchase my first dSLR, the D90 was a dream scenario for me. I thought I was going to go for the Canon T1i, but after my trip to Cameta Camera and actually handling both the Canon and Nikon D5000 & D90, the Canon was so uncomfortable for me.

So, I completely switched my research from Canon sytems to Nikons. The D90 combined everything I loved about the T1i and the ergonomics of the D5000 in one package, not to mention just the overall quality of the camera. I kept going back and forth between the D5000 and D90 purely because of cost. I couldn't bring myself to spending roughly $1,200 for the D90 kit (just bought a house and am getting married next June). I've been spending a lot of time scouring the far reaches of the internet for a dream deal on a D90 system but was losing hope.

I gave eBay another try during my lunch hour today and stumbled upon a brand new D90 with 18-105mm kit lens at a very good price with only an hour left. Not thinking much of it because I have been let down many times in the past within the last few seconds of an eBay auction, I placed a max bid of $1,010. I must have refreshed the page about 300 times in the last 5 minutes watching as my bid continued to hold up. Heart racing, the auction ended and I landed the kit for a whoppingly low $961 and free shipping (the seller has a very high positive rating selling cameras btw) ! I cannot WAIT to get this bad boy in my hands and begin shooting with a dSLR.

Again, sorry for not adding any value with this post but I just wanted to let out my excitement. Thanks to all who have answered my posts over the last few weeks, I'm looking forward to many more discussions as I venture down the long and winding road that is photography.

 

[SelfMadeCelo]

That's awesome man. I'll keep a lot out for some shots. =)

 

[pdxflint]

Not to bring Canon this late into the game, Canon is more affordable platform for building high performance system.

My friend is a Nikon guy and he is using D5000. After building up his Nikon system, he compiled this top 10 list, what he considers high performance AF-S lenses. FYI, he owns 14-24mm f/2.8G, 50mm f/1.4G, and 105mm f/2.8G.

1. AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED ($1800)
2. AF-S Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR ($900)
3. AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR ($2100)
4. AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED ($1900)
5. AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D ED-IF ($1500)
6. AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED ($550)
7. AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G ($450)
8. AF-S DX NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF ($1350)
9. AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ($200)
10. AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED ($800)

To the OP: Unless you're going full-frame, I'd look at alternatives to the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, and the Tokina 12-24 f/4 at $499 is a really great option there, saving $1300 over the high-end Nikkor. And it's a solidly built lens with extremely good sharpness wide open, great performance. Or the 11-16 f/2.8 for another $100.

Also, with a D90 or higher body, the previous generation 300 f/4 AF ED lens is a super option, typically you can find one in excellent shape for $500-600, saving $900-1000 over the current version. And, it's built like a military tank with superb optics. I've used mine with a D300 and the focus tracking is excellent on moving objects, even though it's not AF-S. With the right Nikon body (built-in AF motor and screw drive option) you can really get some good glass, and save a bundle.

I also have an 80-200f/2.8 (two-ring version) which they still make, and it's an excellent piece of glass, with very fast AF (great gearing in the lens) even with an older D50 body. It almost feels like a built-in AF motor, and generally 'pops' into focus. This lens sells for $700-800 used depending on condition, and will probably maintain it's value if you ever decide to sell it. Keep in mind that the AF performance on the D90 will be better than the D5000. The now-discontinued D300, often available refurbished for $1200-1300 if you look around, has the same very high performance AF system that the D700 and D3 series cameras have, which is flat out amazing - the best in the business, at least right now. It has blown me away as I have come to understand all it's capabilities...

I swear by the 50mm f/1.8 - a great little lens, and full of great creative possibilities with a DX body. I'm not sure what the issue with 'stagnant' or 'flat' lines ArtandStructure is referring to, but I love the little lens. Yes, it's a bit long for a "normal" lens, but that mild telephoto perspective combined with the fast f/1.8 aperture makes it a different creative tool than the 35mm f/1.8, and it's cheaper. Screw drive, yes, but no built-in electronics to add to the complications of the lens. It's purely mechanical, which may be why I like a lot of the older designed Nikkor lenses. Also, look down the road and consider the 85mm f/1.8 for $400, or the 1.4 version for several hundred more. It's a great portrait lens also, and is fast. Once you go fast, it's hard to go back. It's not just the ability to shoot in lower light, but it's the ability to render backgrounds out of focus that open up the creative ideas.

PS: I just saw your post where you won the D90 on eBay. Congrats! A good choice... I'd suggest getting rid of the 18-105 kit lens, it's really not that hot - apply whatever money you get for it to take advantage of that built-in AF screw-drive motor to look at all the good stuff out there in used-glassland... or if you can swing it at all, look for a deal (around $1000) on a 17-55f/2.8 DX Nikkor, a much better piece of glass than any kit offering, or if you really need the zoom range I'd look into the 16-85 Nikkor.

Lots of choices...used or new stuff. Happy hunting!!

 

[OrangeCuse44]

To the OP: Unless you're going full-frame, I'd look at alternatives to the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, and the Tokina 12-24 f/4 at $499 is a really great option there, saving $1300 over the high-end Nikkor. And it's a solidly built lens with extremely good sharpness wide open, great performance. Or the 11-16 f/2.8 for another $100.

Also, with a D90 or higher body, the previous generation 300 f/4 AF ED lens is a super option, typically you can find one in excellent shape for $500-600, saving $900-1000 over the current version. And, it's built like a military tank with superb optics. I've used mine with a D300 and the focus tracking is excellent on moving objects, even though it's not AF-S. With the right Nikon body (built-in AF motor and screw drive option) you can really get some good glass, and save a bundle.

I also have an 80-200f/2.8 (two-ring version) which they still make, and it's an excellent piece of glass, with very fast AF (great gearing in the lens) even with an older D50 body. It almost feels like a built-in AF motor, and generally 'pops' into focus. This lens sells for $700-800 used depending on condition, and will probably maintain it's value if you ever decide to sell it. Keep in mind that the AF performance on the D90 will be better than the D5000. The now-discontinued D300, often available refurbished for $1200-1300 if you look around, has the same very high performance AF system that the D700 and D3 series cameras have, which is flat out amazing - the best in the business, at least right now. It has blown me away as I have come to understand all it's capabilities...

I swear by the 50mm f/1.8 - a great little lens, and full of great creative possibilities with a DX body. I'm not sure what the issue with 'stagnant' or 'flat' lines ArtandStructure is referring to, but I love the little lens. Yes, it's a bit long for a "normal" lens, but that mild telephoto perspective combined with the fast f/1.8 aperture makes it a different creative tool than the 35mm f/1.8, and it's cheaper. Screw drive, yes, but no built-in electronics to add to the complications of the lens. It's purely mechanical, which may be why I like a lot of the older designed Nikkor lenses. Also, look down the road and consider the 85mm f/1.8 for $400, or the 1.4 version for several hundred more. It's a great portrait lens also, and is fast. Once you go fast, it's hard to go back. It's not just the ability to shoot in lower light, but it's the ability to render backgrounds out of focus that open up the creative ideas.

PS: I just saw your post where you won the D90 on eBay. Congrats! A good choice... I'd suggest getting rid of the 18-105 kit lens, it's really not that hot - apply whatever money you get for it to take advantage of that built-in AF screw-drive motor to look at all the good stuff out there in used-glassland... or if you can swing it at all, look for a deal (around $1000) on a 17-55f/2.8 DX Nikkor, a much better piece of glass than any kit offering, or if you really need the zoom range I'd look into the 16-85 Nikkor.

Lots of choices...used or new stuff. Happy hunting!!

Thank you for this...The big advantage in my eyes getting the D90 is the fact I can use older lenses that are not AF-S, perhaps land some really nice glass for not so much dough.

 

[pdxflint]

Thank you for this...The big advantage in my eyes getting the D90 is the fact I can use older lenses that are not AF-S, perhaps land some really nice glass for not so much dough.

This is when searching eBay can become addicting...

 

[OrangeCuse44]

This is when searching eBay can become addicting...

What is dangerous is that the eBay app is on my iPhone, uh oh.

 

[dazey]

Interesting comparison but it is one that I find a bit misleading. I find a huge difference between crop viewfinders and full frame and to me I don't see the same in the picture. I am sure it is correct but there may be other issues such as quantity of light that make the crops worse.

On viewfinders, another pro-nikon point is that they have more pentaprism viewfinders but at the low end canon tend to use mirrors. I always find nikon viewfinders better (and to me my D3 finder looks bigger than the 5D, not sure why as they look the same in that pic)

Oh OK, as I indicated, I wasn't sure. You might want to summon up some pride, though; those scene modes can be quite a crutch and will ultimately slow you down.



Yeah, if there's one thing that really can make a big difference on a camera body, it's the viewfinder. The one in the D90 is much better. See this comparison:

(clickable)

Thread on the subject is here.

 

[ArtandStructure]

I'm not sure what the issue with 'stagnant' or 'flat' lines ArtandStructure is referring to, but I love the little lens.

Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick explanation, different focal lengths don't merely see "closer" or "further", they literally "see" differently in terms of proportion and depth which also means their "perspective" or "geometry" or "lines" differ. Longer focal lengths "compress" the sense of depth making objects appear closer to one another than they really are which gives them a more "flat" sense of depth/perspective. As a consequence, the "lines" of the perspective (various edges, contours, textures, proportions, etc.) are less pronounced.

On the flip side, shorter focal lengths "expand" the perceived depth between objects to something greater than they really are, giving visual cues which feel more 3 dimensional. As a consequence the lines of perspective converge more sharply and are more pronounced/distorted.

As a matter of personal preference I find 50mm on a crop sensor to slightly de-emphasize the depth/perspective in an image and create geometry I find dull and not as lively as the image in reality. On the other hand, 28mm is a bit more exaggerated and lively than reality, but I find it more interesting and visually appealing, especially since photographs themselves suffer from being 2 dimensional representations of a 3 dimensional world...I think they benefit some from a subtle accentuation of dimension.

That said, I do love a good telephoto shot, but longer than 50mm on a crop sensor. While 28mm is generally "normal" on a crop sensor I usually prefer to shoot at farther extremes.

I have been working on an article for my site discussing some of this but it has turned out to be a bit bigger project than I thought. It began merely as a general article on lenses but is now a 4 part article on The Lens, Wide & Tele, Zooms & Primes and Aperture. I hope to have it ready soon.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure

 

[pdxflint]

Thanks, Jesse, for your explanation. If I understand what you're saying... the same effect (mild telephoto/distance compression/flattening) would be evident with a 75-85mm lens on full-frame... approximately. I never used an 85mm when shooting 35mm film, but when I added the 50mm 1.8 to my arsenal after shooting with a couple of kit lenses for awhile, loved the speed and the ability to blow the backgrounds that was next to impossible with a kit lens at that focal length, the sharpness and the requirement to use my legs to 'zoom.' It's not a normal lens at this perspective by any means, but it's usable in a pinch if you can move. But I really like that mild telephoto effect - makes subject isolation much easier than with a wider lens, which happens to be one thing I like to do. But it won't replace a kit zoom for convenience, which will undoubtedly be a bit frustrating to some folks.

What I discovered is I like the lens (50mm on DX) for landscapes, a lot more than I thought I would, either straight shots or perhaps multi-image panos. Stopped down a bit the lens is real sharp, and captures great color. Also, it's very, very affordable f/1.8 lens - under $150 brand new, and typically available for $100-110 used in excellent condition. I'd venture that most folks if they just get one, even if they don't know how they'll use it, will eventually stumble upon the things they can do with this lens that they just can't do with anything else at anywhere near the budget. Or the weight.

Those are just some of my totally unscientific thoughts on the nifty-fifty.

Cheers, and all the best to you, too.