NoFear and BB, step inside, please...

[gonefishin3]

Not to twist this convorsation or anything but.... what about video cameras in the 600 price range? Just curious..... I figure a good video camera can take decent pictures.

[BigBassin144]

I don't think it's overkill at all, especially if they don't make a comparable 50mm for the APS-C sized sensor. I think the main thing is the fast lens for low light situations. If it was about having the actual 50mm focal range, I'd go with a 35 to compensate for the crop factor of the APS-C sensor.

Originally Posted by gonefishin3

Not to twist this convorsation or anything but.... what about video cameras in the 600 price range? Just curious..... I figure a good video camera can take decent pictures.

I think that really depends on what you want to do with it. If you'll be shooting a lot of video with the occasional photo, then that should be fine. But if you are wanting to take picture, get a camera. It doesn't have to be an expensive DSLR if you really don't need one. There are plenty of great, easier to use, and less expensive point and shoots out there.

BB

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by BigBassin144

I don't think it's overkill at all, especially if they don't make a comparable 50mm for the APS-C sized sensor. I think the main thing is the fast lens for low light situations. If it was about having the actual 50mm focal range, I'd go with a 35 to compensate for the crop factor of the APS-C sensor.
BB

I just mean it's a shame that he has to pay an extra $100 over the f/1.8 50 mm D lens that would have exactly the same quality, plus an aperture ring. All because the camera body doesn't have an AF motor.

And please remember, compensating for a crop factor by changing focal length is sort of a fallacy. The two different focal lengths will have different aperture characteristics. Focal length has to do with magnification, not image size. If you want a large image, get a full-frame sensor.

Either way, the G lens will do what he wants to do; he will just be restricted to "thru camera" aperture control.

[Bender]

Daniel, I have the 50mm lens without the AF motor so it is all manual. The lens is great for the cost and the photos are extra crisp. With f1.8 you can really get a shallow depth of field. It isn't the lens that I keep on my camera all the time though since it is fixed, but when you are able to adjust your position to get the right photo it is great. Here are a few photos I took last summer with that lens:



and a cropped bumble bee, click the photo to see the big original:



I do wish that I had paid attention and bought the one with the motor, but I don't mind the manual focus most of the time.

[MississippiBoy]

Good shots, Chris. Lookin' good...

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I just mean it's a shame that he has to pay an extra $100 over the f/1.8 50 mm D lens that would have exactly the same quality, plus an aperture ring. All because the camera body doesn't have an AF motor.

And please remember, compensating for a crop factor by changing focal length is sort of a fallacy. The two different focal lengths will have different aperture characteristics. Focal length has to do with magnification, not image size. If you want a large image, get a full-frame sensor.

Either way, the G lens will do what he wants to do; he will just be restricted to "thru camera" aperture control.

I guess I'm kinda stuck with these two options...either the 35mm DX lens, or the 50mm FX lens. Or I could get an AF lens like Bender has, and just deal with having to manually focus it....I don't really like that option, and I KNOW my wife won't.
I'm really having a hard time deciding between those two lenses, assuming I wind up getting one of them....I know the DX lens is "made for" my camera, but I won't want to use a DX lens on an FX camera, if I decide to upgrade sometime in the future. So if I sell the lens with the camera, lose money in the process, and buy another lens, I'll pay more for it then than I would if I bought it now, so I'm better off buying the full FX lens now....IF I ever decide to upgrade. But if I don't upgrade, I'll have spent the extra money on the full size lens, to no real benefit....

Why, oh why, did I ever get started on cameras? Fishing stuff is bad enough, without adding in all of this to it....

I guess I'm going to try looking around for a used AF-S lens somewhere that may work for me. Anybody have any ideas on a particular lens? Something with AF-S, f/1.8 or 1.4, and maybe even an aperture ring? I hadn't thought of that until you brought it up, Bryce. It is a pain adjusting that with the little thumbwheel this camera has....I bet it's a lot easier to just rotate the ring to where you want it.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by MississippiBoy

Good shots, Chris. Lookin' good...



I guess I'm kinda stuck with these two options...either the 35mm DX lens, or the 50mm FX lens. Or I could get an AF lens like Bender has, and just deal with having to manually focus it....I don't really like that option, and I KNOW my wife won't.
I'm really having a hard time deciding between those two lenses, assuming I wind up getting one of them....I know the DX lens is "made for" my camera, but I won't want to use a DX lens on an FX camera, if I decide to upgrade sometime in the future. So if I sell the lens with the camera, lose money in the process, and buy another lens, I'll pay more for it then than I would if I bought it now, so I'm better off buying the full FX lens now....IF I ever decide to upgrade. But if I don't upgrade, I'll have spent the extra money on the full size lens, to no real benefit....

Why, oh why, did I ever get started on cameras? Fishing stuff is bad enough, without adding in all of this to it....

I guess I'm going to try looking around for a used AF-S lens somewhere that may work for me. Anybody have any ideas on a particular lens? Something with AF-S, f/1.8 or 1.4, and maybe even an aperture ring? I hadn't thought of that until you brought it up, Bryce. It is a pain adjusting that with the little thumbwheel this camera has....I bet it's a lot easier to just rotate the ring to where you want it.

Daniel, I hope I didn't give you the impression that you should get a different lens. That is the best 50mm lens you can get for your D3100, as it is the only one that will autofocus. I was merely lamenting that it had no aperture ring. (All "G" lenses lack an aperture ring, even the $5,000 ones.) My favorite lens (18-200 VR) is a"G". But I like prime lenses to have one. Also, my opinion of the 50mm G lens is that the build quality is kind of crappy...a lot of plastic in it (the 18-200 is waaaay better built).

I also want to go ahead and nuke your plan on using it in the future, if only based upon it being full-frame capable. Yes, it will work, but if you ever spend the cash to upgrade to an FX sensor camera, you will not be using this lens. All Nikon FX cameras have an AF motor. You will then be able to use two of the finest lenses Nikon has ever produced, the f/1.8D AF (~$110), or the f/1.4D AF (~$300). The f/1.4 is mind-blowing in low-light situations.

Don't take any of this as a criticism. Nikon's upgrade path is a confusing nightmare. Heck, half of the time, I don't think there even is a path. It's almost like they're just throwing things out randomly, or even worse, deliberately creating conflicts that make you buy extra products. Welcome to hell, buddy.

[Bender]

And just to add to the confusion I found this 40mm lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...%252F2.8G.html

I've been contemplating upgrading too, but not sure I want to jump all the way to an FX camera since they start around $3,000. I've been looking for a macro lens and trying to decide between the 85mm and 105mm, the $450 difference might make the decision easy though. That's where I came across that 40mm listed above. It's an extra $50 over the 50mm you were looking at but gives you the ability to focus much closer and take 1:1 macro photos.

And I agree, this stuff is really addictive. I think that I spend more time shooting than I do fishing now.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Bender

And just to add to the confusion I found this 40mm lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...%252F2.8G.html

I've been contemplating upgrading too, but not sure I want to jump all the way to an FX camera since they start around $3,000. I've been looking for a macro lens and trying to decide between the 85mm and 105mm, the $450 difference might make the decision easy though. That's where I came across that 40mm listed above. It's an extra $50 over the 50mm you were looking at but gives you the ability to focus much closer and take 1:1 macro photos.

And I agree, this stuff is really addictive. I think that I spend more time shooting than I do fishing now.

Go for the 105! DO IT!!!!

I've been sweating that lens for years. I really want to do some macro work, but that is a ton of cash.

[Bender]

I don't know if I will go that far or not. The lens over which I drool is the 24-70mm general purpose lens. Many of the professional photos I see are taken with this lens.

I just saw some photos taken with this Canon macro lens that were awesome, but Nikon does not have an equivalent lens.

The next big issue for me is figuring out some lighting. That stuff is also pretty expensive.

[nofearengineer]

My "California-mom," Janis...has the 24-70, the 105 micro, and the 200 prime. We both have D300's. Every time I visit there I have to pry my fingers off of those lenses. She takes some really nice photos.

[BigBassin144]

The Nikon built in AF motor thing is confusing.

I've also been wanting a macro (Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro) for a while, but $580 is a lot to drop for me. however, it is supposed to be one of the sharpest non L series lenses Canon makes.

Camara gear is much worse than fishing gear...

BB

[MississippiBoy]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Don't take any of this as a criticism. Nikon's upgrade path is a confusing nightmare. Heck, half of the time, I don't think there even is a path. It's almost like they're just throwing things out randomly, or even worse, deliberately creating conflicts that make you buy extra products. Welcome to hell, buddy.

Soooooo, you're saying I should've gone with a Canon instead?

I think I may ask for one of these lenses for Christmas this year. Still debating back and forth between the 35mm and the 50mm. I'm confused as to how the DX/FX thing works as far as the field of view...35mm will give me a wider view, the 50mm will be more zoom. From what I've read, the 50mm FX lens on my DX camera will magnify (probably not the right word, but it's the best I could come up with) up to the equivalent of a 75mm lens. I don't want to get the 35mm and then find out that I would really like a little more zoom, or get the 50mm and find out that I'm always having to step away from my subject (camera terminology! Aren't you proud?) to capture what I want.
An idea hit me while I was typing that...I could use my current 18-55mm lens, keep it at 35mm and use it for a while, then swap to my 55-200mm lens and try it at 75mm. I predict I'll like the 35mm better....

[BigBassin144]

Originally Posted by MississippiBoy

Soooooo, you're saying I should've gone with a Canon instead?

That's what I got out of that.

They say 50mm is pretty close to what your eye sees, if that makes any difference to you.

Explaining the full frame vs APS-C sensor crop factor is hard, so I'll let Bryce do it.

BB

[MississippiBoy]

Originally Posted by BigBassin144

They say 50mm is pretty close to what your eye sees, if that makes any difference to you.

Explaining the full frame vs APS-C sensor crop factor is hard, so I'll let Bryce do it.

BB

Bryce, before you start typing your crop factor dissertation, stop!

Just quick and dirty, which one of those f/1.8 lenses would you recommend?The 35mm or the 50mm? I'm afraid that the 50 will be too zoomed in, so I'm leaning towards the 35.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by MississippiBoy

Bryce, before you start typing your crop factor dissertation, stop!

Just quick and dirty, which one of those f/1.8 lenses would you recommend?The 35mm or the 50mm? I'm afraid that the 50 will be too zoomed in, so I'm leaning towards the 35.

It depends on what kind of photos you are wanting to take. You are correct, though. Sometimes with my 50, I have to do a lot of backing up. But then again, with a 35, you might find yourself having to scoot in. I recommend both.

Isn't photography fun?

I will just say this much about crop factor. A photograph taken with a 75mm focal length looks different than one taken with a 50mm lens, and it's not only the magnification. It affects composition in subtle ways. If you take a picture of a flower with one, and then move back or forward to make the flower come out the same size with the other lens, the relative size of other objects in the photo will be changed.

Just watch the scene in "Feris Bueller" where Cameron realizes that the parking valets put 300 miles on his father's Ferrari. Cameron stays the same size in the shot, but everything else changes. They do that by zooming (chanding the focal length) a camera that is mounted on a dolly. They move the dolly to compensate for the changing focal length.

Crop factor is only and exactly what it says it is. A crop. The DX sensor is smaller than an FX sensor, therefore, it captures less of the image, whether that image is taken with a 50mm or a 75mm lens.

The good thing is, a DX sensor is better for telephoto shooting, and an FX sensor is better for wide-angle shots. This is just a manufacturing issue, as they made the pixels closer together on the DX to compensate a little for the smaller sensor, assuming people would just blow up the images.