Lens recommendations for new DSLR owners

Hey all~! Thought I should ask here instead of making a new thread ><;;

See, I recently got myself a Canon 50mm f1.8. While I like the bookeh effect and all, I find it a bit annoying to use @_@;; I think I'm so used to my kit lens that it's kinda hard for me to get used to my new lens. Maybe it's coz of the no-zoom thing resulting in me having to take my doll picture from a certain distance (that's not really a close up).

Any suggestion on what lens to get? Not necessarily a macro but at least something that'd allow me to take close-ups


I hope my question is clear XD GAH IM SUCH A NOOB WHEN IT COMES TO CAMERA TERMS D:

 

For shooters who have only used zoom lenses, changing to primes can be difficult because one really needs to retrain the eye and the habit of your photography style.

Why aren't you sticking with your zoom if you prefer it?

 

When talking about close ups, I find it easier to talk using magnifications than focal lengths and minimum focus distances. I suspect part of the problem with using the 50mm f/1.8 is that it has a fairly low maximum magnification of 0.15x. The 18-55 IS is over double that at 0.34x. If you like the 50mm lens other than the focus distance, then consider getting "close up lenses" or extension tubes (more expensive ones with electrical connections are easier to use) which allow it to focus closer.

 

WOw!!! Thank you for the advice!!! It really does make a difference with such linses!!

 

I just bought my Pentax K200D last year, and part of me still regrets not buying the kit lens for it. I don't actually have any lenses made for digital cameras. Suffice to say that when I change lenses, setting the aperture freaks my camera out because it can't detect it. I usually use a 28mm lens because it has an "auto" setting, where my camera can set the aperture to her liking, or I can adjust it on the camera. But I also have and use a 50mm and a big giant telescopic macro--don't ask the mm. It's just big, and I have to be about 10' away to take a closeup of Anne's lips. >.< But I love it.

I chose the K200D because it is compatible with *all* Pentax K-series lenses. Including all the ones I already have (aforementioned) for my K1000 SLR. The biggest advice I can give is to use a lens you're comfortable with, try out a bunch, and get a feel for it yourself. Having a good photography store is nice for that. I saved $80 on my camera by not buying the kit lens, but zoom would be useful... sometimes... I'm an artist, so my needs are different. I do *not* take P&S pictures. And learning to use my camera on manual was the best thing I've ever done. Now, I can take pictures. ^_^

Amalia

 

Hi!

I hope this is not a repeat question... I've been reading through the previous posts, but I'm a complete newbie as far as DSLR cameras are concerned, so I didn't understand half of it I'm afraid!

I'm looking for a simple, not too expensive (definitely below $100) macro lens for my Sony &#945;350 DSLR. I have no idea where to look and what to look for! The lens that came with the camera simply doesn't let me zoom in far enough. My husband bought another lens, a Sigma APO DG 70-300 mm, but while it's great for *his* hobby (he likes to photograph the local wildlife), it doesn't do much for me. I'd like to actually sit or stand in front of my objects and shoot, not stand at the other side of the room... UNLESS I'm doing something completely wrong, his macro lens doesn't work for me! Help?

P.S. I hope this post is in the right place. If not, mods, please feel free to move it!!

 

Sad to say, but for your stated budget, you won't find any "real" (as in dedicated) macro lenses, at least new. That said, you can try a Close-Up filter--basically a screw-on magnifying glass for your other lenses. You still won't get as close as a real macro lens though. Canon makes a couple that are well regarded, the 250D and the 500D. (Confusing model numbers, yeah?) The 250D has stronger magnification than the 500D but only fits smaller diameters. The Canon models are just an example. Other brands make similar products as well. Remember that the larger the diameter, the more expensive it will be.

Remember that these are screw-on lenses and thus will work with any brand. There's a magnification chart here, but it is for use with Canon lenses. You can try to match up similar Sony lenses to get an idea what your magnification would be.

I have both the Canon magnifiers. With a "telephoto" kit lens (like the 55-200mm or 75-300mm), they work rather well for something so cheap, though it isn't the easiest setup to work with. If you don't have one already, I'd get a tripod. If you want to work handheld, you will need flash.

 

Macro lenses are typically ones offering higher magnifications. The 70-300 does work ok as a macro but as you noted you do need to be quite far away to use it.

For the price, getting a dedicated macro lens is going to be very tough.

The best suggestion I have is to use a "close up lens", which fits on the front of an existing lens. I wrote more on the topic here. No name branded ones are widely available on ebay for cheap. Drawback is they do have some negative consequences to the quality. Higher quality ones exist, (e.g. search ebay for "Raynox macro") but they cost more too...

 

Thank you very much for your replies Gaiaswill and Popo!

I think right now the close up lens is the best option for me. I actually saw a couple of sets like yours on Ebay, Popo. Will look into it.

Thanks again! Much appreciated.

 

I'm sorry, I neglected to mention something called extension tubes. As the name implies, these are hollow tubes that go in-between your lens and camera. Unlike close up filters, you will have to make sure that the tube is made to fit your camera mount (brand).

Since no glass is involved with an extension tube, they are cheaper. In theory, you could use the same principle to attempt a homemade setup to do the same thing on the really cheap--you just need a way to hold both camera and lens aligned and steady while apart from each other.

Increasing the distance allows the lens to focus closer than it could normally. The longer the tube, the greater the effect. In general, it is somewhat less effective compared to a close up filter. But of course, you could use both at the same time for even higher magnification, possibly higher than 1x (i.e. "life-size").

 

I second that! Extension tubes are a cheap way to focus up close to your subject! I've owned 60mm and 100mm macro lenses in the past, and though they do give you the advantage of focusing close to your subject, they come at quite a high cost. I started playing with some extension tubes last week, and yes, image quality isn't as great as a real macro lens, but it's cheap. Results with the extension tubes on a Canon 35mm L lens:

 

Going out on a limb a bit perhaps, but I would actually claim that the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom lens is as close to a "perfect" lens for new DSLR owners as makes no difference (provided the DSLR is a DX format Nikon, of course).

It isn't very fast, but the glass is quite good, yielding good image quality for the price and type of lens.
It isn't cheap, but it's still far from super expensive, and it is quite often to be found in kits with the "serious amateur" range Nikon DSLR's.

Above all, the great (11.1x) zoom range, from 18mm wide angle to 200mm tele - or 27mm to 300mm, given the DX format's crop factor - is extremely versatile, and depending on the situation and subject, I've found the full range useful for doll photography. The second-generation VR is efficient enough to allow for up to three full stops slower shutter speed than conditions would otherwise warrant, to some degree compensating for the relatively slow optics, especially at higher zoom.
One practical aspect is that the lens is due to its versatility also useable for almost all other kinds of photography, making your camera more than an expensive doll accessory... Scott Kelby (author of the popular - and warmly recommended! - "The Digital Photography Book" series) has described it as "the perfect travel lens" due to this very versatility.

As you progress, you will someday want a better lens, more specialised for your own style of photography. Until then though, this is as close to a perfect "all-in-one" Swiss Army Knife beginning DSLR photographer's lens as I've ever seen. With it, you will in great likelihood be able to start narrowing down what your own style of photography is, and hence what your next lens will need to be.

Even though I now own a fair range of lenses, this is still the lens that I always leave on my camera as the default lens, because I know that whenever an opportunity arises to take an interesting photo, I will not have to change the lens to get the shot, if time is pressing.

Here is an in-depth article on the first version of the lens. The new II version is slightly improved (coatings etc), but essentially the same.

Don't forget: At the same time you buy your first DSLR lens, whether it is in a kit with the camera or a separate lens, do NOT forget to buy a UV filter to go with it! It is the cheapest insurance you can buy for your lens.

 

I use sony 50 1.7
It's pretty good too.

 

I am a bit of newbie to DSLRs/photography. Despite having a Nikon D60 which I bought last year, I have barely used it. For a while I contemplated selling it, but I don't want to give up yet, and I've been getting a variety of opinions. Some suggest I should get a different type of lens to better suit what I want to photograph (close-ups, portraits of people and dolls, wildlife, etc), while others say that I should really learn how to use the one I have first so as not to become overwhelmed with learning to use both.

Currently, I have the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED II, but I almost always use it on 55mm, and sometimes with a macro filter. I've been looking at the AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens, which fits the description of what others were suggesting (telephoto and macro?), without being beyond what I'd like to spend for what is a casual hobby for me.

I was wondering what others would recommend. On one hand, with a lens that better suits what I would like to photograph I would actually use my camera a lot more, but on the other hand, I could just suck it up and try more with the lens I have.

 

A dedicated macro lens (i.e. "real" macro with 50-100% magification) will probably cost more than you want to spend--around $300-400 for a used lens. That said, there are alternatives.

You are already using an inexpensive macro option: close up filters. You can add more of the same (stack them) or you can also try extension tubes. If not these, then you are probably going to need another lens.

I can't speak for the quality of the 70-300mm lens you mention, but I will instead point out that there's a similarly priced alternative (~$250) in the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED that has VR (anti-shake), is an inch shorter and weighs 3 oz less. This is a typical "2nd" kit lens as it's cheap yet good. Either will work decently as macro (~30% magnification), though I don't think I'd call either ideal for portraits.

The cheapest of all and likely the best value is the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D (~$120 new). It cannot autofocus on your D60 though, so you'll have to use your eyes, fingers and focus ring pre-1980s style. If this drawback is ok, I'd pick it up. I will note that dolls do not move and "serious" portraits of people should probably be manually focused anyway (on the closer eye). Plus a similar version that can autofocus costs 4x more, so you may as well get a macro lens if you could pay that much in the first place.

Being a prime (non-zoom) lens, the 50mm will have improved sharpness and contrast (good for hair and eyes) compared to most zoom lenses, which must compromise those qualities to cover their zoom range. Being a prime also means it has a large f/1.8 aperture, about 10 times larger than the f/5.6 of the kit lens at 55mm. Aside from much improved photos in low light, this also means that you can blur the heck out of the background, which is generally considered desirable for portraits (busy backgrounds are distracting).

Of course your magnifying filter can be used with these lenses as well.

A telephoto zoom and cheap 50mm prime like those above are the most popular 2nd (and 3rd) lenses people own because of their bang for the buck. If you think you can get more use out of the 200mm reach (concerts? birdwatching?), get the zoom. If you think you can get more use out of the f/1.8 (all posed work?), get the 50mm. The zoom option would probably be better for macro, but the 50 better for portraits. Your priorities, your choice.

 

Hi all! I think it's time I got myself a 50 mm prime lens for my Sony a350 DSLR. There are two that caught my eye when I did a quick search;

Sony's 50mm f/1.4 lens and Sony's 50 mm f/1.8 lens.

What's the main difference between these two, except the price? Which one would you recommend? Or would you recommend something else entirely? My main objective is to get better light and more bokeh in my pictures.

Thanks!

 

The main difference is that the f/1.4 has an extra 0.4 of a stop maximum aperture, 0.4 really isn't all that much of a difference when it comes to achieving a shallow depth of field when you're dealing with something that wide open already but if they're anything like the equivalent Canon lenses I'd say the price difference is an indication of the quality difference in the lens/glass itself, the f/1.4 tends to be just be a higher end lens, you'll still get excellent results from the f/1.8 though

 

If you want "more bokeh" (more precisely increased defocused blurring) and more light, then the f/1.4 will be better than the f/1.8 as in the same situation, it will give you that bit more of both. I used to have the 50mm f/1.4 on A350 too, and it took me a while to adjust myself to its characteristics. Once I had, I was addicted to the blurring out backgrounds.

The f/1.8 will be a bit less good, but also costs significantly less, so is one to look at if the budget is tight. The f/1.8 version is also a DT type lens, meaning it wont be optimal for use if in future you upgrade to the A850, A900, or similar future top end models. I assume that's not even on the radar so don't worry about it.

At the risk of confusing matters, Sigma have also released a 50mm f/1.4 HSM after I got the Sony. It's more expensive than the Sony f/1.4 version, but reviews say it is the better technical lens. It is a modern design, whereas the Sony design was recycled from an old Minolta lens.

 

Thanks for the info, River & popo!

In what way did you have to adjust to using the Sony f/1.4, popo? Just curious.

I really like that Sigma 50 mm f/1.4! Going to look into that one a bit more. Just got my tax refund, so may be able to spend a little bit more.

 

I just got a Canon T1i this week with the kit lens and this thread has been a great help.

I'm looking at the 50mm 1.8 lens since it's fairly cheap and people say a lot of good things about it. Does anyone have some examples with this lens of how close you can actually get to a 60cm sized doll and keep it in sharp focus with low or indoor light? As said in this thread, they are great for low light and the blur effect, but I don't think I would be able to get in close enough for some shots I have in mind (or keep it steady. The IS on the kit lens is nice). I'm also looking at the 250D close up lens to help take advantage of the low light ability of the 50mm but get in closer.

 

Luckily for you, I own the relevant lenses and am just about to leave for Dolpa NY so my camera happens to be out and ready.

Model is my lovely Dollfie Dream Feena, a 60cm doll. Camera is a Rebel XSi, if you must know. All shots are at minimum focus distance and focused on the lead eye (the closer one). Kit lens is set to 55mm.

Clearly, the 50mm has it's merits, but magnification is not really one of them. From the specs I collected elsewhere online, the 50mm is only capable of about 0.15x magnification and the kit lens about 0.34x. This is seen pretty clearly--the lead eye appears to be well over twice the size in the kit lens sample. The kit lens further demonstrates its value by being surprisingly capable of near-macro work.

Bonus! Further luckily for you, I also own the Canon 250D close up lens. Here's the comparison again using it:

The 50mm now is closer to how the kit lens was, but of course the kit lens started ahead in magnification and stays ahead here.

Magnification is not everything, of course. Since my room light is crappy and I was too lazy to use a flash, I had to shoot wide open at ISO 1600. The wide open shots hint at one of the real reasons to the 50mm: blur. You can really see the "creaminess" of the blur in the 50mm w/ 250D shot--the hair is just a smooth field of color with very little detail.

(The other reason is low light: f/1.8 lets in 10 times more light than f/5.6.)

The typical use of large apertures is to blur backgrounds, so the viewer is naturally drawn to the subject with minimal distraction. You can blur the hell out of almost any background at f/1.8. This is a popular technique among portrait photographers. (Unfortunately these shots don't really demonstrate this usage.)

The kit lens manges only a fairly crummy f/5.6 and cannot accomplish this effect at all.

Anyway, this post took way longer than I'd thought, so I'll let you go here. Hope this helps!

 

Oh wow! This is great and incredibly helpful. It really shows what the kit lens can do, which I have. That last one with the 50mm and 250D does look cool. I wonder how many stops you'd have to go to get more of the face in focus?

Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together. I'm sure it will be helpful to others as well.

Which lens/setup do you find yourself using the most?

 

This is why the modern kit lens is one of the best bargains around--decent images and flexible capabilities at a bargain price. And light as a feather to boot.

From a few test jpgs (with flash), looks like around f/22 to include the rear eye (kit lens, no 250D)--so 4 stops past f/5.6. The short distance to the subject murders your depth of field and these tiny apertures will force a long shutter speed. A tripod helps a lot. God help you if you are shooting handheld or if your target can move (insects? wind?). Bottom line: if you are serious about macro, use flash.

I encourage you to use Live View and its built-in zoom to manual focus. It's better on a tripod but can still be useful handheld. Also, try the depth of field preview button--the tiny unlabeled button below the lens release. This stops down the lens to the shooting aperture, so you can see depth of field before taking the shot.

Either the Canon 17-55mm IS (indoors) or the Tamron 18-270mm (outdoors). Serious work is either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 135mm f/2.8 with softfocus. The kit lens is my specialty lens for lightness--it's only 200g.

I shoot in manual (M), aperture priority (Av) and shutter priority (Tv) about equally. Rarely in program (P) and never in a scene mode. ISO usually auto, but I have a lot of exceptions.

 

Again, great advice. I took 2 years of photography in high school. Too bad I forgot most of it. I do remember Av and Tv, which I've been using the most since I got this new camera.

I'm horrible with flash. I even have an old 420EX speedlite with a diffusing cap and even pointing it up to the ceiling it's always too bright.

Anyway, that's off topic. Thanks again for all the help! I'll probably stick with the kit lens for now (my first BJD isn't even here yet) and then see if I feel the 50mm or maybe something longer will open more opportunities.

 

Flash is a tricky subject indeed. But if you blow out shots all the time--like I used to--there's a few things you can do to tame the flash indoors where the flash is going to be the main light:

• Shoot in M. Set aperture to whatever you feel you need for the shot and shutter speed as fast as it will go (1/200 for a Rebel camera). For most conventional portraits where you want hair to be fairly sharp, I usually use around f/4 for one doll and f/5.6-8 for a group shot. It's art so it'll vary.
• Ignore the internal meter. If you did the above, the camera's meter will likely blink red at you. That's because ambient light will be "killed" (as in way underexposed). This is ok, you are letting the flash do the work.
• Set ISO to something. Lower to kill ambient further if needed, but higher will make your flash "more powerful", increasing its range and reducing the recharge time between shots. Whatever you choose, it is important to take ISO off auto since it will guess wrong for this kind of shot and screw it up.
• Aim the flash away from the subject. This is why flashes tilt and swivel. If your flash directly hits part of the subject, that part will blow out.
• Take off the diffuser--it costs you control, directionality and power. Unless you know why you need it, you don't need it.
• Let the flash itself work automatically (E-TTL mode); this should be the only exposure setting working on auto. Adjust the shot as needed using flash exposure compensation (FEC). Don't be surprised if you have to baby the FEC. If you are using ceiling bounce, I'd just set it to +2 to start.
• If your doll is wearing a lot of white or you are still blowing out more than you'd like, consider activating "Highlight tone priority". This is a custom function (C.Fn) that will try to preserve detail in the highlights. It's convenient. I like it.

This is for basic use indoors. You can mix ambient and flash light sources, which may look more natural, in which case you'd not ignore the internal meter. You can use off camera flash. You can use multiple flashes. And so on.

The 420EX is a perfectly good flash. Give it another try.

I'd still highly recommend the 50mm f/1.8. Even new, it is only $100 and you can find it refurbished or used (Craigslist?) for even less with minimal effort. The f/1.8 will really let you experiment with depth of field in a way the kit lens can't.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for what would be a good lense for photos of faceups from SD size to puki size?

 

Sounds to me that a macro lens would be a good one for that purpose. That, or a zoom powerful enough to let you in close ... but for that, you also need a tripod. A macro would be able to shoot those close-ups handheld.

 

I have a new Nikon D5000 with the kit lens. Does anyone have one of the newer Nikons and know of a reasonably priced macro lens that works well with it?

 

I have primarily Nikon dSLRs (D2H, 2X and 3S), and I prefer the Nikon 105mm macro lens for doll photography. ^__^ However, Tamron and Sigma also make decent macro lenses for a lower price.

 

Nemesia, the new Nikkor AFS 60mm micro is supposed to be really good too. =D
Save up (read as get one less doll), and get either the 105mm or 60mm. =)
Or maybe the Tamron 90mm macro?
You could consider the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as well as it's more versatile because of the zoom (and sell your kit lens).
You can also consider getting the Nikkor 18-105 (D90 kit lens) instead.
It's a really good budget lens.

Honestly, I rather buy Nikon when I can. The colors and performance just outstrips third party lenses.
If it wasn't for the fact that the Nikkor 17-55 cost more than twice as much as the Tamron 17-50, I would have bought the Nikon.

Rainwaltz, I would love to shoot with you one day! =D

 

Nikkor 35mm
Not too expensive and looks great!

 

35mm isn't macro. Haha! But it is still a really good lens that's worth considering. =D

If price is an issue you can look at getting the AFD 60mm macro. But on a D5000 there won't be autofocus. =(

 

Thanks everyone!. I had the chance to use a macro lens without the autofocus & decided that it doesn't work for me. Even with a good tripod I think it would be very limiting. The 105mm macro would be ideal but I may go for the new Nikkor AFS 60mm micro.

 

I have to say that my 100mm macro (Pentax) lens on an APS-C (1.5 multiplier) DSLR is a bit long for doll work. I recall one shoot where I had the dolls set up in the room and had to move my tripod out into the hall to get the framing I wanted. But it's been so long since I shot doll pictures now that it's hard to remember. I keep eyeing the 50mm pentax macro lens, but it's pricey, and unless I get back into doll photography heavily, it's hard to justify adding it between my 50mm f1.7 and my 40mm f2.8 autofocus. The 100mm macro's bokeh is beautiful, and it's a wicked sharp lens, and what I read is that the 50mm macro is even better.

Now, when I'm at the zoo, the 100mm is my go-to lens.

-HH

 

That's something to consider. Hmm

Nemesia, do let us know how the 60mm works out for you! It should be my next lens. I had the opportunity to try it at the store, and the colours seemed a bit different as compared to the usual Nikkor.

 

50mm f/1.8 actually works really well, I haven't photographed bjd's with it yet buuut I have used it to photograph my other dolls and it takes pictures quite gloriously. And the lens is quite cheap too.
These pictures are both with the 50mm on a Nikon D90 body, no photoshop either, just lovely crisp colors~

 

Wow. I hadn't considered using my straight 50mm for shots like that. Are these images cropped?

Also, to disagree with Natsuka, Pentax makes a very highly regarded 35mm macro, though I now must try my 50mm f1.7 and see if I even /need/ a short macro for doll work, or if the normal lens will do the job.

-JRS

 

Not cropped at all! Just using it on the manual setting and using the f/1.8 does the trick! The 50mm is actually a really good doll photography lens, but kinda sucks that it doesn't have any zoom. I think it pays to get up close to the doll so that it blurs out nicely in the background. Although you cant beat a good macro lens for really closeup picture

 

I'm wondering if anybody has tried photographing with a fisheye / fishbowl lens. I've really been considering one for some more fun/whimsical looks especially for my Soom Eliv (the tinie fish MD). I just made the recent transition from SLR to DSLR in a canon rebel xs. I made the switch from canon to canon to accommodate my old zoom lens. I've found some fisheyes, but they're on the pricey side. Anybody used one? Loved it? Wanted to use one? Hated it?

 

I have a fisheye, but don't really use it for dolls. The wide angle is wide! Here's a quick, if rather bad, sample for illustration.



To get her any significant size in the image, I had to get right up to her. The shadow to the left of the image is because I got so close. I'm using the Samyang 8mm lens, which is commonly available on ebay under various rebranding, and is cheap as far as they go. It is fully manual, but that's no problem really. Once you set the aperture down to f/8 or so, the depth of field is so vast you don't need to do much for focusing accuracy. Here she is actually far inside where the lens is rated to focus, and I used f/11 for even more depth of field at minimum focus.

The lens is quite fun to use, but I haven't been hit by inspiration to use it with dolls yet... some of my non-doll examples: here, here and here.

 

The non doll examples are gorgeous. I was almost thinking about shooting with a fisheye on top of that but from ABOVE with her on fabric etc to emulate the sea. I want some really weird, non shadow based shots. My shadow stuff is always crap, and I want something really unique. Plus... I just want one to play with anyway.

Reach for the Sky is lovely, I imagine a puki tucked in there. I think it'll serve best for distance shots anyway, like a 1/3 off in trees/grass/snow etc. Thanks for sharing all those shots with me. I can show the hubby what I'm talking of, and, maybe, oh happy Christmas to me!

 

My favourite lens is my Canon 50mm f1.8. I usually use it with macro rings (x2 or x4 most often) and love the extreme depth of field it gives.

 

To put in my 2 cents...

My father has a variety of lenses. He is the author of Astrophotography for the Amateur, among other things - but dolls are not at all like stars to photograph! Fortunately his knowledge has been my gain...

If you have a bit more money to spend - go for a lens with image stabilization. I know that many indoor setups do not have enough light, etc., and the image stabilization has been a real life-saver for me. I can experiment with more moody lighting and hand hold pictures at pretty slow speeds (1/4 sec or so), and if I prop it up on a nearby solid surface, even better than that. Not everyone has the time to do a full outdoor photoshoot, or really wants to do that every time, so I really highly recommend image stabilization.

 

You can get around the need for image stabilization by just using a tripod and either your camera's auto-timer or a remote shutter release. If your hands aren't on the camera, they can't cause camera shake on a long exposure.

 

Hi everyone~ I've decided on the Nikon D3100 for my first DSLR, and was wondering if I should buy it with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom-Nikkor VR lens or go body only and get a lens that would be better suited for doll photography? What would you recommend?

Thanks!

 

In general, the kit zoom lens is a versatile tool for general use, and the low cost means you should probably get it unless you do want to replace it functionally. You might consider an additional lens, like the 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 to help give that defocused background look.

 

Do you have pics of when you use the macro rings? I bought the canon 50mm f1.8 for my first lens and I like it. But now I'm looking for a lens for outside non doll pictures and for a macro lens for closer pics. But since I can't afford both the ring options sound interesting.

Btw pics I've made with the canon 50mm f1.8 I don't like to use this lens for full body shots :s..buzz i try anyway..

 

Anybody here has a Canon 35mm and 50mm lense and could compare these two for me?
At the moment I have a 50mm one, but I'd really like to see a comparison between these two

 

Compare in any particular way? Assuming you're talking about the current budget models (EF 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 II) then:
1: for the same relative camera position, the 35mm will obviously be wider angle and on top of that have a weaker defocus blur potential.
2: however, the 35mm f/2 has a higher maximum magnification, so you can get closer which will help...

I can do samples of the above later. The above also assumes you're not modifying the lenses e.g. with extension tubes or close up filters.

 

Yes, the current models, not the L models

My problem:
I really like the 50mm one, especially because of the great Bokeh etc.
However, the distance between me and the doll has to be quite big or else the camera won't focus (in case of the 50mm one it's 0.45m and for the 35mm it's 0.25m minimum distance).
But I'm not sure if the 35mm is a good lense for doll photography and if, due the wider angle, dolls won't look strange with it :/

And nope, no modifying of the lenses.

 

Here's samples of three lenses, at three positions corresponding to the minimum focus distance of each. The camera was not moved at each distance.

Lens, minimum focus distance, maximum magnification:
EF 35mm f/2.0, 25cm, 0.23x
EF 50mm f/1.8 II, 45cm, 0.15x
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, 85cm, 0.13x

I thought I'd add the 85mm as it may also be interesting to some. Note the minimum focus distance for each is specified from the sensor plane to focus point. The length of the body and lens will eat into this so the working distance from lens to focus point is smaller.

Model is Volks SD Nono.

At the minimum focus distance of the 85mm f/1.8:


EF 85mm f/1.8 USM


EF 50mm f/1.8 II


EF 35mm f/2.0

At the minimum focus distance of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II:


EF 50mm f/1.8 II


EF 35mm f/2.0

At the minimum focus distance of the EF 35mm f/2.0:


EF 35mm f/2.0

Note these samples were taken to illustrate the maximum background blur potential. In practice, you might reduce the aperture a bit to get more in focus!

This test was with a SD size doll. If you're shooting smaller dolls, then having more magnification available definitely helps. In that case, of these lenses I'd go for the 35mm f/2 without question. The 50mm f/1.8 II is popular I think due to its low price. The 50mm f/2.5 macro is also in a similar price ball park to these so it may also be considered as an alternative.

If you don't mind working a bit harder on the focus aspects, then extension tubes or close up filters will give you even more magnification potential for a fairly low cost on any of these lenses.

 

God, thank you popo, that comparison was awesome and very useful
Exactly what I needed, and the 85mm comparison is awesome too, since I wanted to get that lense in distant future too (but for something else, it's helpful nonetheless).

Yes, I especially considered the 35mm because of my MSD and especially YoSDs, 50mm are mostly okay with the big SD+ guys.

Thank you again, in the normal DSLR forums I couldn't find anything really helpful, since usually the folks there were talking about taking pictures of humans, of course

 

Have you considered an actual macro lens? The 50mm 2.5 is quite affordable and the people I've known who've had it have liked it. (I'm a Nikon guy but I've worked with Canon on the job) It'll get you really close, and the drop to 2.5 isn't that big of a deal because you really should be shooting the 50mm 1.8 at at f/2.8 or so for sharpness, and the Macro lens will be super-sharp wide open. It's actually cheaper than the 35/2 as well. There's also the 60/2.8 which is a true 1:1 macro lens, but only works on APS-C bodies, and is around $400.

 

Well, I don't want to get "really close" and a real macro lense would be, in my opinion, a bit too much.
I mostly need a lense which I could use as a portrait lense for YoSDs and such, the 50mm itself is usually okay, but sometimes a bit difficult to handle when I don't have that much space.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. Maybe I'll find a place to try them out both

 

Attention Nikon shooters:

Nikon just officially announced a new 50mm f/1.8. It replaces the existing model, which is almost 25 years old, and has an AF-S autofocus system, which means it'll work on any of Nikon's lower-end DSLR bodies. It's priced at a very reasonable $219. That $219 sticker might end up being more like $199 after a few months on the market, too, although if it's anything like the 35mm 1.8, it might be worth paying the MSRP and actually having one, since it'll probably be hard to get for quite a while due to demand.

If you're an owner of a D40, D60, D3000/3100 or D5000/5100, this lens is an excellent option, and will be a great short portrait lens and general purpose lens for BJDs and full-size people. It's probably also worth buying if you have a D90/D7000 or better and don't already have a 50mm lens. Actual tests aren't out yet, but it's almost certain to be at least the equal of the existing 50mm 1.8D, and the improved autofocus system and better build quality are likely worth $100 extra.

It has a redesigned rounded 7-blade aperture (don't worry if you don't know what that is), which means it's almost certain that the bokeh (background blur) of the lens will be really nice, too.

 

Just to add, due to you-know-what in Japan, there's a broad SLR and lens "shortage". I think the new 50 is going to be a popular lens. If you want it, try to order it sooner rather than later. If you miss the initial shipment, you may end up waiting 6 or more months to get it.

 

I suspect that this lens may actually be made in Thailand or China, so it might not be as much of a problem. I know the current 50 1.8 is made in China, as are the kit lenses and most other lenses selling under $600 or so, and even the 50mm 1.4. Certain lens components are still made in Japan, though, which may cause a supply problem. I mention Thailand because Nikon already has plants there that manufacture midrange products like the D300s camera bodies, and accessories like lens caps and hoods, and there's been talk of shifting some of the Japanese production there in the wake of the disaster, since the Thai plants generally hold a higher production standard than the Chinese ones.

Much more pressing, I think, will be simple demand. This lens is gonna be a huge seller at $219, and production issues aside, it'll be worth preordering one as soon as possible simply because of competition from other customers. The same happened with the 35mm 1.8, and it's still hard to get, over two years later.

 

I'd like to add to this! Wonderful to have found this thread. I'm always very excited to read about lenses.......

I mostly use manual focus Olymps Zuiko lenses. I adapt them to my DSLR via an adapter. I have a 50mm & a 35mm. These lenses are amazing....allowing for great "film noir" quality, these lenses don't really give off a digital appearance.


Still trying to perfect "sharpness" with these lenses. I have Tourette's, so it's a bit hard -- with the motor tics involved with TS -- but once I "get" it, I GET it. Zuiko lenses have a lot of clarity.


And the fact that you can control the focal point -- fantastic. I've not owned a manual focus lens before my Zuikos', mostly because of intimidation.


These days, I find it very unnerving when I cannot personally control where the focus lies ... to those of you who are scared of the learning curve manual focuses presents ... jump right in and do it any way. If anything, it'll be a fun experience ... a game to play with, if nothing else. Wonderful once you get the hang of it.




Thanks for this awesome thread!![/COLOR]

 

hello! I was looking into getting this lens http://www.adorama.com/US 445362.html for my nikon D40. Does anyone have this lens on a nikon? could they shamelessly show me examples of it?

 

I can't give an example though it's not too hard to find examples elsewhere. However, I will just point out that autofocus won't work on this body+lens combination. You'll need the newer AF-S version for that.