Nikon D7100 Camera Lens

[compuwar]

i read full frame is better quality over all for whatever your shooting. somewhere i read its 2 stops better in lower light as an example and the bodies are more robust.

"Better" depends on what you're comparing, but there's a point at which noticeably "better" and "worth the difference" intersect. If you're not specifically looking for a characteristic of a FF body for what you're shooting now, then you're nowhere near that intersection.

Low light performance depends heavily on the sensor itself and the well depth of each pixel. In general, FF sensors have larger sensels which gather more photons and therefore generate more electrons producing better signal. My FF camera has worse low light capability than many APS-C bodies simply because (a) it has very small sensels and (b) it's a half a generation or so back.

I have no idea what you condsider "robust," but since there are more professional and "prosumer" FF bodies than amateur ones and they cost significantly more, I'd expect their characteristics to be "better."

Let's say you spend 1x for an APS-C body and 2x for a FF body and you expect your APS-C body to have to last 5 years. That means that FF body needs to last 10 years to have the same value proposition all other things being equal. If you need a particular feature that FF or a professional body provides, then all things aren't equal. But I submit that if you needed that, you'd know it- if you don't know it, then you don't need it and you'll be better off spending that money on better quality lenses, which will last you at least 10 years. You'll get way, way better results with an $800 modern DSLR and $2700 in two lenses than a $2700 DSLR with two ~$400 lenses. Plus, in two years when a new $800 body comes out that outperforms today's body, it'll be easier to upgrade.

Paul

 

[Clix Pix]

i read full frame is better quality over all for whatever your shooting. somewhere i read its 2 stops better in lower light as an example and the bodies are more robust.

Do you have any understanding of depth-of-field and how different lenses/camera bodies/sensors might have an impact on that? If you don't, then maybe you are not quite ready to jump into a full-frame camera body with appropriate sensor..... Not to mention, yeah, there would be a fairly substantial investment in FF lenses in order to really achieve desired results......

 

[phrehdd]

i read full frame is better quality over all for whatever your shooting. somewhere i read its 2 stops better in lower light as an example and the bodies are more robust.

well let's see 4x5 was better than medium format that was better than 35 that was better than mini catridge and so on in film. Where do you draw the line?

In the digital world everyone is hyped about pixels and full frame. It is not about the pixels exactly but also about how cameras handle the space between the pixels.

Exactly how large to you print? If you are doing 4x6 prints you'll find very little difference. If you do A3 and up say 16x20, you'll note a difference assuming all things are equal between full frame sensor and the smaller sensor.

Since I don't shoot for prints beyond 11x14 in general, I don't shoot action, I got a mirrorless camera that served my needs very well. Some pros are also using the smaller sensor mirrorless with ease and prefer it over behemoth uber DSLR full frame. It really depends on what you want to accomplish, your style of shooting and skillset.

 

[oikos]

This is a great suggestion. When I got rid of my DX stuff, I kept this lens and 1 DX body. When I want to travel light or grab and go, it's a toss up between this setup and an FX body with a 35mm on it.

I "third" this suggestion of the Nikon 18-200, with VR (vibration reduction)
Most of the other suggestions are all in the wide-angle-to-normal range, which won't let you take portraits of people unless you are practically in their face. This is an all-in-one lens that will serve you very well until you get deeper into specific types of photography. It's a no-brainer to me.

----------

This is a great suggestion. When I got rid of my DX stuff, I kept this lens and 1 DX body. When I want to travel light or grab and go, it's a toss up between this setup and an FX body with a 35mm on it.

I "third" this suggestion of the Nikon 18-200, with VR (vibration reduction)
Most of the other suggestions are all in the wide-angle-to-normal range, which won't let you take portraits of people unless you are practically in their face. This is an all-in-one lens that will serve you very well until you get deeper into specific types of photography. It's a no-brainer to me.

PS: I don't comment on MacRumors very often, but I have been a semi-pro, multiple prizewinning photographer in multiple genres (sports, wildlife, underwater) for 35 years, and the 18-200 is the most versatile lens I've ever owned. I also have a 20, 60mm micro, 105mm micro, 70-200, 80-400, and others, but those are all special purpose lenses. A 50 mm lens is a waste of money, as is a lame kit lens. Get the 7100 body (excellent choice) and an 18-200 and you can take all kinds of pictures!

 

[KimJonNumberUn]

I "third" this suggestion of the Nikon 18-200, with VR (vibration reduction)
Most of the other suggestions are all in the wide-angle-to-normal range, which won't let you take portraits of people unless you are practically in their face. This is an all-in-one lens that will serve you very well until you get deeper into specific types of photography. It's a no-brainer to me.

----------






PS: I don't comment on MacRumors very often, but I have been a semi-pro, multiple prizewinning photographer in multiple genres (sports, wildlife, underwater) for 35 years, and the 18-200 is the most versatile lens I've ever owned. I also have a 20, 60mm micro, 105mm micro, 70-200, 80-400, and others, but those are all special purpose lenses. A 50 mm lens is a waste of money, as is a lame kit lens. Get the 7100 body (excellent choice) and an 18-200 and you can take all kinds of pictures!

Ive always read the
nifty fifty" is a great all around lens? you are the first to say its ****

 

[Apple fanboy]

Ive always read the
nifty fifty" is a great all around lens? you are the first to say its ****

Depends on what you want to shoot. What makes a good lens is subjective because we don't all shoot the same things.
The nifty fifty is a good lens for portraits and street photography. It will also perform well in low light compared to others. However I don't do any of that type of photography.
Lenses and bodies are like tools. Pick the right ones for the job you are doing. If you then move on to a different job, pick a different tool.

 

[Kurwenal]

A 50 mm lens is a waste of money, as is a lame kit lens.

I think this is an overstatement. Something like the 50 f/1.4G lens is hardly a kit lens and, at $400, is about the farthest thing from a "waste of money" I can imagine. It is one of the highest reviewed lenses and provides more "bang for the buck" than just about any other lens out there. That is why it is one of the best reviewed lenses on B&H (more than 1000 reviews with an average rating of 4.8 out of 5).

To be sure, there are low-quality 50s out there, but a categorical statement about all 50s is inaccurate.

As for the utility of a good quality 50, I disagree as well. Consider someone like Henri Cartier-Bresson, who shot with a 50 for nearly his entire career (50 years) and produced shots that, well, hardly qualify as a waste.

One of the great things about photography is that what is a perfect kit for one photographer in one situation is a horrible kit for another photographer in a different situation. Categorical statements are almost, by definition, always wrong. I love my 50. Last year, I decided to take it on a D600 for a two week trip in Europe, and there was only one instance where I wished I had my 24-70 or some other lens. For now, my "travel light" kit is either the 50 on a D800 or an 18-200 on a D7100.

 

[oikos]

I think this is an overstatement. Something like the 50 f/1.4G lens is hardly a kit lens and, at $400, is about the farthest thing from a "waste of money" I can imagine. It is one of the highest reviewed lenses and provides more "bang for the buck" than just about any other lens out there. That is why it is one of the best reviewed lenses on B&H (more than 1000 reviews with an average rating of 4.8 out of 5).

To be sure, there are low-quality 50s out there, but a categorical statement about all 50s is inaccurate.

As for the utility of a good quality 50, I disagree as well. Consider someone like Henri Cartier-Bresson, who shot with a 50 for nearly his entire career (50 years) and produced shots that, well, hardly qualify as a waste.

One of the great things about photography is that what is a perfect kit for one photographer in one situation is a horrible kit for another photographer in a different situation. Categorical statements are almost, by definition, always wrong. I love my 50. Last year, I decided to take it on a D600 for a two week trip in Europe, and there was only one instance where I wished I had my 24-70 or some other lens. For now, my "travel light" kit is either the 50 on a D800 or an 18-200 on a D7100.

I didn't say a 50mm can't take some nice pictures. But an 18-200 with VR can take ANY picture that an f1.4 50mm lens can take, and far more, from wide angle to medium telephoto, and that is why the much more limited 50 is an inefficient way to spend money on a first lens. 50mm was never considered a prime portrait lens. One of the reasons camera makers started selling bodies alone in the 1980s without the standard 50mm, or with kit ZOOM lenses more recently, was because a lot of people were tired of wasting money on very limited-range/purpose 50mm lenses. Beginners quickly grew out of them, and had to buy other lenses. I'm saying save some money and by-pass that money when the next lens they'd probably want is something like the 18-200, which can take any picture the 50 can take anyway. As I said, it's about versatility for the dollar, to let a beginner explore a range of types of photography. I stand by my recc- and that of 2 others - from a cost/benefit point of view for a first lens, the 18-200VR a no-brainer. And I see that it is in fact one of your own go-to travel-light options.

 

[Meister]

A 50 mm lens is a waste of money, as is a lame kit lens. Get the 7100 body (excellent choice) and an 18-200 and you can take all kinds of pictures!

Awardwinning photographer or not, calling the 50 a waste of money is wrong.
For people who dont know what kinda photography they like to do it might not be the best choice but its still a great, light and affordable lens. The 35 would be the weapon of choice for a dx body though.

 

[Kurwenal]

I stand by my recc- and that of 2 others - from a cost/benefit point of view for a first lens, the 18-200VR a no-brainer. And I see that it is in fact one of your own go-to travel-light options.

I'm not disagreeing with your recommendations, only this statement, which, in my experience, is both wrong and a very different statement than your recommendations:

A 50 mm lens is a waste of money, as is a lame kit lens.

As a pure matter of fact, most 50mm lenses are not kit lenses, including the lens linked in my prior post. As for its utility, I just disagree that it is categorically a waste of money for every photographer in every situation, and 1000+ B&H reviews also disagree with you. Even Thom Hogan, who is hardly shy about being critical of equipment, has two 50's on his "recommended" list.

But, it's all good. Clearly, you shouldn't go buy one!

 

[compuwar]

But an 18-200 with VR can take ANY picture that an f1.4 50mm lens can take

Um, no- it can't. At 50mm the 18-200 wide open is f/4.8, more than 3.5 stops slower. Each stop is a doubling or halving of light, depending on which way you're going. So you need 350% more light to get an equivalent image.

It doesn't have the same bokeh because it only has 7 aperture blades, not 9 and the depth of field is larger.

It can't freeze action under the same low-light circumstances because the 50mm is faster a 1/30th of a second shutter speed with the 18-200 will be around 1/400th with the 50.

It can't always take images with the same shallow depth of field because the 50mm is faster. Even when you zoom out and back up (when there's room) you're not likely to get an equivalent image because the superzoom is a variable aperture lens.

Superzooms are made because they're versatile for people who don't want to change lenses, that doesn't make them the exact equivalent of other lenses in their focal length. If that were the case, then the manufacturers would just make superzooms. The 18-200mm VR II is a very good lens for what it does, but it can't take ANY picture a f/1.4 lens can because: physics.

Paul

 

[oikos]

I'm not disagreeing with your recommendations, only this statement, which, in my experience, is both wrong and a very different statement than your recommendations:



As a pure matter of fact, most 50mm lenses are not kit lenses, including the lens linked in my prior post. As for its utility, I just disagree that it is categorically a waste of money for every photographer in every situation, and 1000+ B&H reviews also disagree with you. Even Thom Hogan, who is hardly shy about being critical of equipment, has two 50's on his "recommended" list.

But, it's all good. Clearly, you shouldn't go buy one!

I know perfectly well that 50mm lenses are not kit lenses today. That was in fact my point - they were the kit lenses back in the 70s and 80s, and the reason they are not today is because so many people found them to be too limiting as a first/general all purpose lens. Thus todays mfrs give zoom lenses that have at least some range instead. But they are usually more narrow zooms, or sometimes two narrow zooms instead of 1 decent one, because the narrow ones are cheaper to make. If you're lucky, you get what you pay for. Neither did I say a 50 is a waste of money for ALL photographers and every situation. The original poster was asking for advice for 1 general purpose lens that would cover an array of types of shots for them to learn what they like. Ergo, the recc of the 18-200 VR.

 

[oikos]

Um, no- it can't. At 50mm the 18-200 wide open is f/4.8, more than 3.5 stops slower. Each stop is a doubling or halving of light, depending on which way you're going. So you need 350% more light to get an equivalent image.

It doesn't have the same bokeh because it only has 7 aperture blades, not 9 and the depth of field is larger.

It can't freeze action under the same low-light circumstances because the 50mm is faster a 1/30th of a second shutter speed with the 18-200 will be around 1/400th with the 50.

It can't always take images with the same shallow depth of field because the 50mm is faster. Even when you zoom out and back up (when there's room) you're not likely to get an equivalent image because the superzoom is a variable aperture lens.

Superzooms are made because they're versatile for people who don't want to change lenses, that doesn't make them the exact equivalent of other lenses in their focal length. If that were the case, then the manufacturers would just make superzooms. The 18-200mm VR II is a very good lens for what it does, but it can't take ANY picture a f/1.4 lens can because: physics.

Paul

Umm, you apparently don't understand what "VR" means? It gives one an extra 3-4 stop-equivalents in workable shutter speeds. So the 18-200 at 50mm/f 4.5 can indeed take pictures in virtually/EXACTLY the same level of light as your $400 50mm lens at f1.4. You are correct that it will do so with a little more depth of field than the 50 - but that is desired about as often as it is not desired, so I'd call that issue a wash unless you're talking about superfine portraits or macro work - but those topics require other, more specialized lenses.

That covers two of your paragraphs.

A 50mm lens is NOT a portrait lens, even on a DX body. It has MORE depth of field than a traditional portrait lens of 80-135mm, arguing against your point on that as well.

When it comes to speed, I can always zoom a lens in or out faster than someone can do the equivalent by moving their feet with a fixed length lens.

I find the tiny sacrifice not having the narrowest depth of field possible at a focal length I rarely use to be worth it many times over, when considering all of the other kinds of pictures that an 18-200 can take that would be missed by a 50mm lens - which is what the original poster was asking for advice on - s/he actually wanted that "versatile lens so s/he wouldn't have to change lenses, and that is what the 18-200 precisely is and what the 50 precisely is not.

Arguing over the bookeh of a 50 mm lens is pretty esoteric for a beginning photographer who wanted advise on a general purpose lens, not the exotica of a single focal length. I stopped using my 50mm lens in 1980 and have never once missed it. When I switched to a different camera brand, I easily decided against getting 50mm glass, though I did get 60mm and 105mm macro lenses for underwater. - but that is a whole other specialty, not what was being asked for.

So sorry to have ticked off devoted 50mm lens users (which I had never come across in 35 years of photography), but I still stand by my advice for the question that I was responding to - a 50mm would indeed be a waste of money for him/her. It would be not even be in the top 8 or 10 lenses I would buy.

 

[MCH-1138]

Umm, you apparently don't understand what "VR" means? It gives one an extra 3-4 stop-equivalents in workable shutter speeds. So the 18-200 at 50mm/f 4.5 can indeed take pictures in virtually/EXACTLY the same level of light as your $400 50mm lens at f1.4.

Not to unnecessarily fuel the debate here, but you cannot necessarily take the same photo using a VR lens as you can using a fast lens.

As you note, you can't achieve the narrower depth of field that you can with a wider aperture. That may or may not be important at any given time. But you also don't get the faster shutter speed for the same exposure. VR minimizes/negates camera shake, but it doesn't do anything for the motion blur of a moving subject. So yes, you can take a photo with the same overall exposure, but if you're shooting 1/30 @ f/4.5 on one and 1/160 @ f/2 on the other, you might be capturing very different images, depending on what your subject is doing. I suspect you know that already, but it gets lost in the generalization.

And for the record, you can count me as fully appreciating the utility of the 18-200 as an solid all-around lens, even though I disagree with your premise that a 50mm lens is a bad choice or waste of money for a beginner.

That, of course, is the problem with trying to answer the question of "what is the best lens for me?"

 

[compuwar]

Umm, you apparently don't understand what "VR" means? It gives one an extra 3-4 stop-equivalents in workable shutter speeds. So the 18-200 at 50mm/f 4.5 can indeed take pictures in virtually/EXACTLY the same level of light as your $400 50mm lens at f1.4.

Which only accounts for *camera* motion (a tripod does the same thing) that doesn't account for subject motion, so no, it's not the same thing, and does not produce the same results when subject motion is an issue (kids, wildlife, vehicles, windy conditions...) So, while you may be able to take a picture in the same level of light, you're not going to get your assertion of the same result.

You are correct that it will do so with a little more depth of field than the 50 - but that is desired about as often as it is not desired, so I'd call that issue a wash unless you're talking about superfine portraits or macro work - but those topics require other, more specialized lenses.

I shoot more often in aperture priority mode than shutter priority mode for exactly that reason- I doubt that most serious photographers consider it a wash for anything other than landscapes. "A little more" depends heavily on camera<->subject distance, but for many, many subjects the difference makes or breaks the idea of subject isolation- a critical issue if you're doing more than taking snapshots. There's a reason we're all paying for fast lenses, and it's not because we all like carrying around the extra weight and more lenses. Plus, most lenses are at their best quality a couple of stops down from wide open- limiting the options with a slow lens even more.

A 50mm lens is NOT a portrait lens, even on a DX body. It has MORE depth of field than a traditional portrait lens of 80-135mm, arguing against your point on that as well.

Actually, the framing of 75mm (DX equivalent field of view) is in the portrait lens range which for 35mm is traditionally 70-135mm, and opened up an f/1.4 lens doesn't have more depth of field but less, even when accounting for the subject<->camera distance difference unless the longer lens is fast as well, something the 18-200mm isn't at 80mm onward. Check a hyperfocal distance calculator if you don't believe me. But again, that's got nothing to do with your claim you can shoot the same images.

When it comes to speed, I can always zoom a lens in or out faster than someone can do the equivalent by moving their feet with a fixed length lens.

Again, this has nothing to do with your assertion that you can take the same pictures, which is not true.

I find the tiny sacrifice not having the narrowest depth of field possible at a focal length I rarely use to be worth it many times over, when considering all of the other kinds of pictures that an 18-200 can take that would be missed by a 50mm lens - which is what the original poster was asking for advice on - s/he actually wanted that "versatile lens so s/he wouldn't have to change lenses, and that is what the 18-200 precisely is and what the 50 precisely is not.

Which again has nothing to do with your assertion that the 18-200 can take exactly the same images.

Arguing over the bookeh of a 50 mm lens is pretty esoteric for a beginning photographer who wanted advise on a general purpose lens

Again, not what I was correcting.

So sorry to have ticked off devoted 50mm lens users (which I had never come across in 35 years of photography), but I still stand by my advice for the question that I was responding to - a 50mm would indeed be a waste of money for him/her. It would be not even be in the top 8 or 10 lenses I would buy.

I've been shooting with my own cameras for about 39 years, and in terms of 35mm SLRs, I'd say that for AT LEAST the first 10 or 15 of those years most SLR owners only owned a 50mm lens since that's what most SLR bodies came with in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. Until relatively recently the average lens:camera ownership statistic was about 1.1-1.2, so unless you live somewhere quite odd and way off the grid, most photographers would by default be devoted 50mm lens owners. However, again, I'm just correcting your erroneous assertion that you can take the same images with an 18-200 VR as with a 50mm f/1.4.

Paul

 

[kallisti]

I'm new to the world of photography and I live in Hawaii where there are spectacular landscapes to take photos of and I'm looking to pick up a D7100 plus a lens that would allow me to do so. However, I'm also going on a trip San Fran then NYC for about two weeks and I'll be taking pictures of friends and tourist attractions. So I'm wondering what would be the best lens for my purposes. I would love to get a lens that would allow me to take great landscapes but also capture people with the blurred background effect without having to change lenses. So I was wondering if anyone had suggestions. I read somewhere that the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G was a good general lens but like I said I'm new to this hobby and looking for suggestions.


Thanks for any help you can give

To the OP:

My first choice (if you can afford it) would be the 24-70 as originally suggested by Compuwar. It is a great lens for what you are describing. On a DX body it will give a field of view similar to a 36-105 on full frame. This is wide enough for scenics and long enough for portraits. While f/2.8 isn't *really* fast, it will allow for acceptable blurring of the background (especially at the longer end of the zoom range). It's also fast enough for using in low light (better than a consumer zoom, though not as good as a prime lens). The downsides are cost and bulk (it's relatively big and heavy--I've used it for travel on several trips but it isn't inconspicuous). An added bonus is that since it is a FF lens, if you ever have the need to switch to a FF body, you will still be able to use it. $1887 on Amazon. Pricey, but it's a good lens. Could end up being the only lens you ever need (depending on your ultimate shooting style/requirements).

My second choice would be the 18-200 as several others have suggested. It's very versatile, more affordable, and would probably suit your needs well. It's slower (bigger minimum f/stop) which will impact your depth of field and ability to shoot in low light. The VR will help with the latter (with the caveats pointed out by others earlier in the thread), but not the former. However the longer focal length when zoomed out will let you "blur the background," even though the f/stop is larger (aperture is smaller). I used the original version of this lens for several trips in the past (one of them in Hawaii!) and was pleased with its versatility. Technically not as sharp as the 24-70, but in practical terms this may not be noticeable or important to you. Since it's a DX lens, you won't be able to use it if you ever change over to FF. But you may never have a reason to change over to FF.... $597 on Amazon. A perk of going this route is that you will have the chance to play with a *very* broad range of focal lengths--which may make it easier for you to see which one or ones you tend to gravitate towards. This will make subsequent lens purchases (if you feel you need to "upgrade") more informed.

I wouldn't recommend a prime as a first lens. While I currently use a 35mm (or more recently a 50mm) prime on an FF body for most of what I shoot, that's a reflection of my tastes/needs. On a recent trip to Italy I took a 24mm and 35mm and didn't feel I missed anything. Most of the shots were with the 35mm. Most ended up getting cropped a bit when I edited them. However, that's just me. One of the above zooms would be a much better choice until you gain more experience and get a feel for which focal length(s) work best for your style of photography.

Best of luck and enjoy the trip! San Francisco and NYC are two of my favorite cities to visit and photograph. Hawaii has also yielded fantastic photo opportunities for me, so you've kind of hit the trifecta

 

[oikos]

Which only accounts for *camera* motion (a tripod does the same thing) that doesn't account for subject motion, so no, it's not the same thing, and does not produce the same results when subject motion is an issue (kids, wildlife, vehicles, windy conditions...) So, while you may be able to take a picture in the same level of light, you're not going to get your assertion of the same result.



I shoot more often in aperture priority mode than shutter priority mode for exactly that reason- I doubt that most serious photographers consider it a wash for anything other than landscapes. "A little more" depends heavily on camera<->subject distance, but for many, many subjects the difference makes or breaks the idea of subject isolation- a critical issue if you're doing more than taking snapshots. There's a reason we're all paying for fast lenses, and it's not because we all like carrying around the extra weight and more lenses. Plus, most lenses are at their best quality a couple of stops down from wide open- limiting the options with a slow lens even more.



Actually, the framing of 75mm (DX equivalent field of view) is in the portrait lens range which for 35mm is traditionally 70-135mm, and opened up an f/1.4 lens doesn't have more depth of field but less, even when accounting for the subject<->camera distance difference unless the longer lens is fast as well, something the 18-200mm isn't at 80mm onward. Check a hyperfocal distance calculator if you don't believe me. But again, that's got nothing to do with your claim you can shoot the same images.



Again, this has nothing to do with your assertion that you can take the same pictures, which is not true.



Which again has nothing to do with your assertion that the 18-200 can take exactly the same images.



Again, not what I was correcting.



I've been shooting with my own cameras for about 39 years, and in terms of 35mm SLRs, I'd say that for AT LEAST the first 10 or 15 of those years most SLR owners only owned a 50mm lens since that's what most SLR bodies came with in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. Until relatively recently the average lens:camera ownership statistic was about 1.1-1.2, so unless you live somewhere quite odd and way off the grid, most photographers would by default be devoted 50mm lens owners. However, again, I'm just correcting your erroneous assertion that you can take the same images with an 18-200 VR as with a 50mm f/1.4.

Paul

Well argued, for the most part. I stand corrected on the potential differences between a 50mm and an 18-200 VR at 50mm. I've just never known a serious photographer (e.g. someone who goes beyond a kit lens for snapshots) who uses a 50mm lens for either portraits or for freezing motion, hence I was more focussed on the issue of shutter speed side of exposure than aperture at the time. I do alternate between shutter and aperture priority though, and sometimes both are fixed (underwater with flash). Mea culpa.

But none of that changes my opinion of what lens would be best for a beginner who wants to experiment with a range of photography, as the next commenter explains better than I did. I also assumed that a beginner would not be considering spending over $1000 for a first lens.

 

[KimJonNumberUn]

Well argued, for the most part. I stand corrected on the potential differences between a 50mm and an 18-200 VR at 50mm. I've just never known a serious photographer (e.g. someone who goes beyond a kit lens for snapshots) who uses a 50mm lens for either portraits or for freezing motion, hence I was more focussed on the issue of shutter speed side of exposure than aperture at the time. I do alternate between shutter and aperture priority though, and sometimes both are fixed (underwater with flash). Mea culpa.

But none of that changes my opinion of what lens would be best for a beginner who wants to experiment with a range of photography, as the next commenter explains better than I did. I also assumed that a beginner would not be considering spending over $1000 for a first lens.

you still think a 18-200mm lens produces betetr pictures thena prime like at the same 50mm angle? LOLOLOLOL

 

[Meister]

you still think a 18-200mm lens produces betetr pictures thena prime like at the same 50mm angle? LOLOLOLOL

This post gets the award for weird randomness.

 

[compuwar]

you still think a 18-200mm lens produces betetr pictures thena prime like at the same 50mm angle? LOLOLOLOL

You can't measure "better." However, in the other poster's defense, DXO says the 18-200mm has more resolution at 50mm than the 50mm prime. If those numbers hold, then for some set of images, it may.

Paul

----------

This post gets the award for weird randomness.

Channeling his inner Rodman buddy?

Paul

 

[kallisti]

you still think a 18-200mm lens produces betetr pictures thena prime like at the same 50mm angle? LOLOLOLOL

This isn't going to be a totally fair reply--the topic is actually quite complex. However, thought you might find the following interesting:

Took three photos at roughly the same time. One was with a Nikon D3100 with an 18-200 (the initial version of the lens), one with a Nikon D800 and 24-70 lens, and the last with a Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens.

All shot at f/8, 1/60 sec, ISO 320. Handheld, not on a tripod. All shot in RAW and WB made roughly equal in LR5.

D3100 and 18-200 lens @ 35mm. Cost for the shot: $399.99 (including the kit lens) + $596.95 (for the newer version of the lens) = $996.94

Nikon D800 and 24-70 lens @ 50mm. Cost for the shot: $2,796.95 + $1,886.95 = $4,683.90

Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens. Cost for the shot: $6,560.89 + $3,995.00 = $10,555.89

All 3 photos were taken with roughly the same field of view. All 3 were taken at identical camera settings. The light varied a little between shots. Out of curiosity, do you think the latter two are "better" than the first one? They *must* be, because they cost 4 to 10 times as much to produce!!

The reality is that all 3 are crappy photos: the subject isn't interesting, the composition sucks, and the light isn't great. Garbage in = garbage out. I could take another series where I could show off the strengths of the more expensive gear. But your dismissal of the 18-200 compared to a professional 24-70 or a 50 prime isn't as straightforward or as obvious as you seem to want to make it, at least in all circumstances.

 

[Meister]

This isn't going to be a totally fair reply--the topic is actually quite complex. However, thought you might find the following interesting:
[...]
But your dismissal of the 18-200 compared to a professional 24-70 or a 50 prime isn't as straightforward or as obvious as you seem to want to make it, at least in all circumstances.

Dude - you just gave a elaborate, illustrated explanation as a reply to kimjonnumberuns post....
Please take a look at his other posts and you will understand.

Also: Damn! those are some crappy photos.
It really is an amazing example that expensive gear doesnt automatically make a good shoot.

I just went out to shoot the skyline at night with my 50mm and 14mm and i was reminded how much i love the lightness of those new plastic lenses. There is alot of complaining about the build quality of the new nikon g lenses but i like them. The 50mm 1.8 just feels right for me on fx. 35mm 1.8 might do the same for th OP.

 

[KimJonNumberUn]

This isn't going to be a totally fair reply--the topic is actually quite complex. However, thought you might find the following interesting:

Took three photos at roughly the same time. One was with a Nikon D3100 with an 18-200 (the initial version of the lens), one with a Nikon D800 and 24-70 lens, and the last with a Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens.

All shot at f/8, 1/60 sec, ISO 320. Handheld, not on a tripod. All shot in RAW and WB made roughly equal in LR5.

Image
D3100 and 18-200 lens @ 35mm. Cost for the shot: $399.99 (including the kit lens) + $596.95 (for the newer version of the lens) = $996.94

Image
Nikon D800 and 24-70 lens @ 50mm. Cost for the shot: $2,796.95 + $1,886.95 = $4,683.90

Image
Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens. Cost for the shot: $6,560.89 + $3,995.00 = $10,555.89

All 3 photos were taken with roughly the same field of view. All 3 were taken at identical camera settings. The light varied a little between shots. Out of curiosity, do you think the latter two are "better" than the first one? They *must* be, because they cost 4 to 10 times as much to produce!!

The reality is that all 3 are crappy photos: the subject isn't interesting, the composition sucks, and the light isn't all that interesting. Garbage in = garbage out. I could take another series where I could show off the strengths of the more expensive gear. But your dismissal of the 18-200 compared to a professional 24-70 or a 50 prime isn't as straightforward or as obvious as you seem to want to make it, at least in all circumstances.

 

[kallisti]

One of the OP's concerns was having the ability to "blur the background." He/she initially raised the question of a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Subsequent posts suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom or an 18-200 variable zoom. Subsequent posts to these raised the question of whether the 18-200 was noticeably different from a 50 prime.

Took these three shots tonight as examples. Nikon D3100 (DX body) with both an 18-200 lens and 24-70 lens. Also a Leica M (240) with 50mm f/1.4 lens.

All shot at maximum aperture for a FF equivalent focal length of 50mm in low light. Specific camera settings included with each image. Tried to make the WB and exposure equal between the images in LR5. Not perfect though. All shot handheld from a prone position. The focus for all was on the frame within the glass panes in the door.

Nikon D3100 and 18-200 lens (version 1). 35mm, f/4.2, 1/4 sec., ISO 3200. Cat(s) snuck into this one

Nikon D3100 and 24-70 lens. 35mm, f/2.8, 1/8 sec., ISO 3200

Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens. 50mm, f/1.4, 1/25 sec., ISO 800

The ability to isolate the subject (and thus blur the background) is clearly better with the faster lenses (and in the case of the last photo also because it was shot on FF at 50mm and not at 35mm as on the DX body). This is optics/physics, you can't get around it with VR. Zooming out more with the 18-200 will allow you to blur the background more, but that also changes the perspective of elements within the frame and assumes you can step back enough to use the longer focal length.

All gear involves trade-offs. Thought these examples might prove more helpful than verbal arguments

 

[oikos]

One of the OP's concerns was having the ability to "blur the background." He/she initially raised the question of a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Subsequent posts suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom or an 18-200 variable zoom. Subsequent posts to these raised the question of whether the 18-200 was noticeably different from a 50 prime.

Took these three shots tonight as examples. Nikon D3100 (DX body) with both an 18-200 lens and 24-70 lens. Also a Leica M (240) with 50mm f/1.4 lens.

All shot at maximum aperture for a FF equivalent focal length of 50mm in low light. Specific camera settings included with each image. Tried to make the WB and exposure equal between the images in LR5. Not perfect though. All shot handheld from a prone position. The focus for all was on the frame within the glass panes in the door.

Image
Nikon D3100 and 18-200 lens (version 1). 35mm, f/4.2, 1/4 sec., ISO 3200. Cat(s) snuck into this one

Image
Nikon D3100 and 24-70 lens. 35mm, f/2.8, 1/8 sec., ISO 3200

Image
Leica M (240) and 50mm f/1.4 lens. 50mm, f/1.4, 1/25 sec., ISO 800

The ability to isolate the subject (and thus blur the background) is clearly better with the faster lenses (and in the case of the last photo also because it was shot on FF at 50mm and not at 35mm as on the DX body). This is optics/physics, you can't get around it with VR. Zooming out more with the 18-200 will allow you to blur the background more, but that also changes the perspective of elements within the frame and assumes you can step back enough to use the longer focal length.

All gear involves trade-offs. Thought these examples might prove more helpful than verbal arguments

Nice illustration.

But I think the discussion may have become too focussed on what happens at a single focal length.

Another option left out of the discussion on the zoom would in fact be to zoom in to a longer focal length from a greater distance to get approximately the same view as the 50mm closer up. At the greater focal length, even though the zoom can't open up as much to get the bokeh, it will have less depth of field/more bokeh for for a given f-stop than it would at 50mm, and if it's long enough, possibly similar to the 50mm opened wide? This would have an advantage in situations where getting too close to a subject would distract the subject (if a person or animal) and mess up the shot. The quality of the bokeh may suffer, but how much may depend on the details of the shot. Sometimes not as nice, sometimes fine.

And of course, if one would like to but just can't get physically close enough in time to get a shot, the zoom will allow one to get many shots that the 50 would just miss.