I am on a number of photography forums on line. Many of these forums are very active with beginners, pros, and everything in between. There are a lot of questions asked on line that cover many different topics. However, it seems like there are a lot of questions that center on photography hardware and what should the person buy. Often the questions are somewhat vague. Hint for you, if you ask a question like - What camera should I get - What lens is the best - or Do I need to move to a full frame camera - please add some additional information in the question. Please make sure to list what you currently use. List the types of photography you do, like portrait or landscapes or sports. Say if you do it professionally or as a hobby. And yes even those that shoot professionally (for pay) ask some pretty basic questions. Everyone starts somewhere. Also list your budget. Are you wanting to stay with an inexpensive solution, or can you lay down a stack of big bills to get whatever your heart desires.
Once the question is posted you start to see people immediately jump on and list their favorite camera body or lens etc. They don't ask what the person is using currently, what they think they are lacking, or what types of photography they do. They also seem to have the same answer for every single question. The answer is most often also suggesting some of the most expensive equipment. Sometimes you will even see jabs at lesser equipment. Of course you can expect that kit lenses, especially those that come with a lower end DSLR will get special ridicule. Don't misunderstand, I don't think that the kit lenses are the be all and end all of lenses. However, some of the most recent ones are quite surprisingly good, especially for something you get free with the camera. The mushroom images in this blog were shot with the Nikon D5100 and the kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. They were shot at around ISO 2000 (I was using auto ISO), a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, and an aperture of f/5.6 at 55mm. I was VERY close to the mushrooms. Some of the extreme closeups I was like a foot or less to the subject. So I was basically shooting the kit lens like a macro lens at that point.
There are a number of lenses I will often recommend to people. It is not uncommon at all to hear me tell people to take a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for a crop sensor DSLR (it will vignette on full frame) for $500 new or about $250 on eBay. It is a stunning lens. The optics are extremely sharp. And the consistent wide f/2.8 aperture is so nice, especially for portraits. Even that lens is considered a lesser lens by a lot of the photo geek squad. Some go as far as to say you should never put any lens on your camera that was not made by the same company that made the body. They will regularly recommend the very expensive Nikon or Canon lenses, and really look down on the mention of Tamron or Sigma, etc. This football shot was taken with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens on the D5100 at ISO 1250 and 1/320th of a second. The print of this is even more incredible than looking at it on the computer. Oh, yes I was on the sidelines for the shot. If I had to be in the stands I would use the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (and yes a Tamron). You would need the extra focal length. And this is one of those cases where the kit lens, or even the 55-200mm "kit" lens would suffer since even the widest aperture is several stops "slower" than the f/2.8 I could get on this lens. The stadium on Friday nights is very dark and you need a good fast shutter speed for sports.
Sometimes the really good lens is actually pretty inexpensive too though. If you are able to move around to frame your shot a prime or fixed focal length lens can get you top quality for a very low sticker price. It used to be quite a number of years back that the "kit" lens for a 35mm SLR was the 50mm f/1.8 lens. I have a 50mm f/1.8 D model that I still use, although it does not auto focus on my D5100. I just have not been able to justify spending the just over $200 for the G model that will. So I still shoot it for portrait work quite often. Here is a shot with my friend (and an amazing model) Jasmine that we took during a group shoot with Beauty with Brains in Kalamazoo (yeah the town from the Glenn Miller song). If I had used the kit lens here she still would have been very sharp in focus and looking good. But I would not have been able to get the shallow depth of field that I was able to get on the "nifty 50" at f/1.8 aperture. The thing is that the D version I shoot with is only $130 brand new! And even at $200 to $250 the 50mm is a bargain.
So bottom line is that you don't have to spend a load of money on your equipment to get good photos. Often to improve your photos you simply need to change technique. A lot of people have not mastered the equipment they currently have, and they are under the idea that they just did not spend enough. What you need to ask though is what are you currently dissatisfied with? What are you not currently able to do? Then find out if maybe it is technique that you are struggling with. Or, if you do need something else to help you get where you need to take your photography make sure to define well what you want to do. There is no "perfect lens". Keep in mind too that one of the reasons the lenses can be swapped out on a DSLR is that no one lens will do it all. The superzoom lenses (like an 18-200mm) are built with a load of compromises to get the lens to work at so many focal lengths. So it is really good at a lot of things (or some of them are not even really good if they are the really cheap ones) but they are not great at any of it. I like using the Sigma 18-200mm if I want to just grab the camera with a single lens for a walk about all day with the wife and don't want to schlep my computer bag everywhere (and get dirty looks for constantly stopping and changing things). But I would not use that lens for shooting models or doing portraits of people. I would definitely not use it for night time sports photography. You could shoot your kid playing soccer on a sunny Saturday when you are shooting f/8 and it would do pretty well though. But if you are wanting to shoot sports for getting published in a magazine you will need the better resolution of something like the Tamron, Nikon, or Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, even if you are shooting it at f/8 aperture. It is all about the right equipment for the right job, and sometimes that can be the lowly kit lens to shoot macro photos of mushrooms at your local nature center.
So bottom line is that you don't have to spend a load of money on your equipment to get good photos. Often to improve your photos you simply need to change technique. A lot of people have not mastered the equipment they currently have, and they are under the idea that they just did not spend enough. What you need to ask though is what are you currently dissatisfied with? What are you not currently able to do? Then find out if maybe it is technique that you are struggling with. Or, if you do need something else to help you get where you need to take your photography make sure to define well what you want to do. There is no "perfect lens". Keep in mind too that one of the reasons the lenses can be swapped out on a DSLR is that no one lens will do it all. The superzoom lenses (like an 18-200mm) are built with a load of compromises to get the lens to work at so many focal lengths. So it is really good at a lot of things (or some of them are not even really good if they are the really cheap ones) but they are not great at any of it. I like using the Sigma 18-200mm if I want to just grab the camera with a single lens for a walk about all day with the wife and don't want to schlep my computer bag everywhere (and get dirty looks for constantly stopping and changing things). But I would not use that lens for shooting models or doing portraits of people. I would definitely not use it for night time sports photography. You could shoot your kid playing soccer on a sunny Saturday when you are shooting f/8 and it would do pretty well though. But if you are wanting to shoot sports for getting published in a magazine you will need the better resolution of something like the Tamron, Nikon, or Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, even if you are shooting it at f/8 aperture. It is all about the right equipment for the right job, and sometimes that can be the lowly kit lens to shoot macro photos of mushrooms at your local nature center.
RSS Feed
