Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Your walkaround lens...
- Thread starter flosseR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously, I'm not pushing him towards the kit lens, I'm pushing him towards diagnosing _what_ his results are a sign of-- It may be that it's the kit lens's resolution- but until he knows that for sure, it's worth exploring what the actual issue is. I've seen enough poor technique exhibited in modern DSLRs that I don't take for granted that anything's equipment anymore. Until you know what the problem is, swapping out components is sub-optimal.
You haven't gotten it yet? Sheesh!
You just need a bigger bag!
400mm is your walkaround lens? You live in the mountain or something?my AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
My walkaround used to be the 17-40 f/4L; on a 1.6x crop body, this was a perfect range. On my 1DmkII, however, I find it a bit too wide and not quite long enough.
These days I find that about 50% of the time I'll have a 50mm prime of some sort on my camera (1.8 or 1.4) and the rest of the time I split between the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L.
These days I find that about 50% of the time I'll have a 50mm prime of some sort on my camera (1.8 or 1.4) and the rest of the time I split between the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L.
+1 on this. Truthfully the modern consumer lenses for all the crap they get are hardly distinguishable from the pro glass at 5.6, and probably indistinguishable from the pro glass at f8 or f11. My cousin's "throwaway" 18-55Nikkor has less distortion than my 18-200 does at many focal lengths. Furthermore, unless you're regularly making large prints of your pictures, the differences even wide open are going to be very, very hard to spot. Buying a 2.8 may not be the best investment if all you're gonna do is post up vacation shots on Flickr.
If all of the OP's shots are all at stopped down apertures then there is no point buying a better lens because it's user error not gear problems. Or maybe he's shooting wide open in the sunlight because he hasn't fully understood manipulating aperture and shutter speed and relating aperture to lens performance. I saw some photos from someone I knew which were from a D700 and I noticed he was shooting walkaround shots in broad daylight at ISO 4000 and 1/1000sec shutter speeds. This just shows an incomplete understanding of how to best use the tools available to you.
If the OP is finding that he is always shooting wide open in low light and needing more DOF, then maybe a 2.8 lens would be a good investment. Or, actually maybe they just need to try shooting at higher ISO, etc. and improve their PP before they try to fix their problems with faster glass.
But all too ofen I see or hear people getting a camera with a kit lens and then immediately thinking they need to upgrade to a pro 2.8 zoom to get good results. It happened to me too, but fortunately I held off on buying until I realized what I actually wanted to shoot and then spent the money on a used Nikkor 12-24/4 which I use for landscapes and it's awesome. I used to lust after the 70-200 but realized I would not use it much for what I like to shoot.
If the OP is just starting out, I'd also highly recommend figuring out what is wrong with the shots before assuming that lack of sharpness is just a crummy kit lens. Perhaps posting some examples (including 100% crops to determine sharpness) will help us see if the problem is gear related or not.
Ruahrc
My walkaround lens on my D90 is either the 18-200VR or 24-70.
18-200VR for vacations or when I know I'm gonna be doing a lot of traveling by foot. 24-70 when I can put up with the extra weight and when I want that shallower DOF, extra sharpness/contrast.
With regards to the 18-55 kit lens. I never found sharpness to be an issue with this lens, despite it being "cheap" both in price and build quality. If the OP is noticing significant issues with sharpness, it is either user error or simply a defective copy of the lens or unrealistic expectations or some combination of those. I agree with the others... a few sample pics (with exif) showing the sharpness problems will help us to determine the cause.
18-200VR for vacations or when I know I'm gonna be doing a lot of traveling by foot. 24-70 when I can put up with the extra weight and when I want that shallower DOF, extra sharpness/contrast.
With regards to the 18-55 kit lens. I never found sharpness to be an issue with this lens, despite it being "cheap" both in price and build quality. If the OP is noticing significant issues with sharpness, it is either user error or simply a defective copy of the lens or unrealistic expectations or some combination of those. I agree with the others... a few sample pics (with exif) showing the sharpness problems will help us to determine the cause.
Yes, it's a cheap lens, and it feels like it. However, it's sharp. The previous 18-55 mm kit lens was very sharp, and the newest version that was released a couple of years ago should be just as good, if not better. The main issues with the lens are probably (still) related to the lack of special coatings, the risk of seeing flares, aperture and low-light issues, etc.
I'd agree with compuwar that if the OP is having trouble with sharpness, then perhaps he should find out why. I wonder if the OP occasionally gets sharp photos with the kit lens?
If he does, then I doubt it's the lens. A lens that isn't sharp would never be able to take an occasional sharp photo. Anyway, depending on where I'm walking (outdoors, indoors, tight spaces, etc), I'd either walk around with my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, or my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4.
The Sigma is OK, but I wonder whether the newer Sigma 24-70 mm HSM version is a lot better at 70 mm? On my version, the lens is quite soft wide open at 70 mm. Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC, Canon mount. (The Canon 17-55 IS USM didn't exist when I bought the Sigma.)
That said, I think it's well worth his time to try to figure out why his images aren't sharp. The Sigmas are famous for front focus issues that look like a lack of sharpness wide open...obviously he has a Nikkor, but there's no reason that couldn't be the problem...
That said, I think it's well worth his time to try to figure out why his images aren't sharp. The Sigmas are famous for front focus issues that look like a lack of sharpness wide open...obviously he has a Nikkor, but there's no reason that couldn't be the problem...
sharpness
Ok, I think I have figured out what some issue with that lens is and I am taking it in for repair.
My Kit lens's VR mechanism isn't really functioning as it should.
I took two pictures with a tripod, same settings one with and one without VR. the one without VR is pin sharp, the one with VR looks sharp but when magnified it isn't really.
I then just looked through the viewfinder and hit the focus button and the VR SHOULD adjust once, shortly, but it keeps adjusting , there is this constant ever so slight movement. I borrowed another VR lens and sure enough, its one quick adjust then that's it. So final say: I will have to have it repaired then.
PS, the attached image was taken with the KIT lens at wide open at 1am without VR, on a tripod with ISO 160 and 1/5 sec.
Ok, I think I have figured out what some issue with that lens is and I am taking it in for repair.
My Kit lens's VR mechanism isn't really functioning as it should.
I took two pictures with a tripod, same settings one with and one without VR. the one without VR is pin sharp, the one with VR looks sharp but when magnified it isn't really.
I then just looked through the viewfinder and hit the focus button and the VR SHOULD adjust once, shortly, but it keeps adjusting , there is this constant ever so slight movement. I borrowed another VR lens and sure enough, its one quick adjust then that's it. So final say: I will have to have it repaired then.
PS, the attached image was taken with the KIT lens at wide open at 1am without VR, on a tripod with ISO 160 and 1/5 sec.
Attachments
You are not supposed to use VR when using a tripod (as your camera's instruction manual will confirm).
similar setup: 5D with Sigma 50, and hoping the E-P1 will be what the Sigma DP could have been...
28-300mm Canon L.... it is not very discreet or very light... or even reasonably priced but I do love mine very much.
You can read a review of it here
I am planning to get a Micro 4/3 camera with a 17mm pancake lens as a walkaround setup in future
You can read a review of it here
I am planning to get a Micro 4/3 camera with a 17mm pancake lens as a walkaround setup in future
Agreed with the VR and the tripod, and I knew this. but as said the VR in my lens keeps moving while the same lens (18-105mm) from a friend moves once to stabilize and thats it.
I gave my lens already to repair and even the guy at the counter said that it is not supposed to do this. So let's see..
Still eyeballing that 2.8 lens though
I gave my lens already to repair and even the guy at the counter said that it is not supposed to do this. So let's see..
Still eyeballing that 2.8 lens though
my AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
My "walk around" is usually the AF-S II version, wish I had the VR one, as the MTFs are astounding.
Olympus E-420 w/ 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Digital Zuiko (kit lens from the E-500) equivalent is 28-90.
Olympus PEN?
Olympus PEN?
Tokina 12-24mm is always attached to my nikon d200 - as I'm a huge sucker for wide angle photography, nevertheless I always carry a 50mm/1.8f in the camera bag as you never know how late you will stay out shooting. Lately I've been a lazy bum and after picking up a Panasonic FX37 [which has a 25mm wide angle lens!] - it's what sits in my pocket all day ready to capture the moment, while the nikon begins to get lonely...
From my experience, VR behaves differently in different lenses. I haven't used the 18-55 VR, but I do have the 105VR and an 18-200VR and the VR movement while it's stabilizing is different when looking through the view finder. Don't visually compare the VR reaction between different lenses... compare it with another 18-55VR to see if yours is really faulty. Better yet, take some handheld low light shots where your shutter speed is just a couple stops short of being handholdable. Compare the results with VR on and VR off.
And it's been said already, but if you used VR on a tripod, it is normal for the shots to be even softer/blurrier than the same shot with VR off. When mounting on a tripod, turn the VR off.
And it's been said already, but if you used VR on a tripod, it is normal for the shots to be even softer/blurrier than the same shot with VR off. When mounting on a tripod, turn the VR off.