Beginner My new lens has arrived!

BunnyPics

BunnyPics

Messages
141
Name
Oksana
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone :)

Very happy and excited here as my new lens has arrived today. It's on, it has been tested, and it has made me one content girl (for the time being, anyway). So I thought I'd share it with you, in case anyone is considering one like it or has any experience to share back with me.
After much deliberation, consideration, and contemplation, I updated my kit lens (Nikkor 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6 VR and all that) to Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. (Oh! That makes me realise I haven't tried its Macro yet. I'll post this and go outside to find some bugs.) It wasn't just a new lens I was looking for, not just something that's "better" than the kit lens, and not something bigger than my mates have. There were good reasons for choosing this particular lens and it seemed like the best option for my needs and my budget.

  • I take a lot of bunny photography. I have to be quick with it - if Rusty's sitting pretty or eating cutely, I have to grab it and snap it. So no time for changing lenses. (And, honestly, with rabbits in all rooms and the messy mutt that I am, my house is SO DUSTY that I had to go outside to change it. Impractical.)
  • A lot of it is done while lying on my belly. The 18-55's range was limiting. If I was fully zoomed in, I had to crawl closer if a bunny walked away or crawl backwards if they moved towards me.
  • The sharpness just wasn't there in my photos. The kit lens gave me awful, smudged whiskers and fuzzy fur. (I keep my lenses very clean and look after the well , but only today did I realise that I had stabiliser switched off on it all along! Doh!)

So I needed something all-purpose, that would go longer than 55mm. And, understandably, sharper.:LOL: (The OS is on!) And I wanted to spend under a hundred (Yeah, right!). Initially, I wanted 70-100mm, which I could get for £80, but it wouldn't give me wide angle, and I don't fancy having to go outside each time to change lenses. My dad said NO, it'll be a waste of £80, and he said it was not the right lens for me. By that point, I forgot everything he taught me previously, and we again had to have a long talk about focal distances, cropped sensors, and apertures - and, again, I feel like I understand all this stuff again! Anyway, he hung up to think and rang in 20 minutes with Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. He was very particular that I should get the 2012 model (the one with Macro in the title) and not the 2009 one, as the 2012 one is lighter, better stabiliser, made differently inside, better plastic on the outside, and it has enhanced macro capability. (He is convinced I will love using macro. Can't wait to try!) So went and got it straight away and it arrived today.

I had a huge bout of doubts the day after I ordered it and had to ring my dad again for reassurance :confused: Didn't I just get the same lens as I already had, just a bit longer on the long end? He was like... err... why do you think it's the same? I said it seemed very similar to me, the apertures at the focal distances and hit him with other jargon which I didn't even know how to use correctly in sentences. He reassured me hugely, removed all my doubts, sent me reviews, and said it will be a nice, easy one for me, something I'll never have to take off.

I used the blower tool (???) as he told me and changed it outside to avoid rabbit dust getting inside. BUT before I did it, I sat in the conservatory, set the camera on aperture F8, exposure 1/250, ISO 100 (it was sunny) and took three photos of some picture frames that were piled up on a table opposite: one at 18mm, one at 35mm, and one at 55mm. Then, I washed my hands, hair, and wiped all dust off myself and changed the lens outside while holding my camera pointing down (and holding my breath too!), and excitedly hopped back in to take three of the same photos with my new lens. (All in RAW, of course!)

I compared the shots in Lightroom, using the comparison view, and - INDEED - they ARE a lot sharper. Quite noticeably. At 18mm, the chromatic aberration (I compared around the edges of the photo and around areas of dramatic light change, like around conservatory roof beams and curtain edges)... so chromatic aberration is a lot less for the Sigma lens. On Sigma, it's just a slight pink tinge around the dark, while the Nikkor lens gives me a bright violet halo. Then I went outside and took a photo of the neighbour's new fence at 250mm, to assess the distortion. What can I say... it's minimal. Even with something as straight as fence panels (and his are straight) I wouldn't have noticed it unless it was pointed out to me. I wish I also did this on 18mm on both lenses and did a comparison, but going outside to change them again (twice!) does not appeal, and I am pretty convinced that, yes, I got myself a better lens.

Oh! And I thought the focus was pretty fast on the Nikkor lens, which it was, which was the main reason for my getting a DSLR because rabbits don't generally pose and sit still looking cute for longer than a second or two. But Sigma's focus is startlingly faster. I am sure I'll get used to it but, at the moment, it's a bit shocking because it beeps far before I have sufficiently gathered my thoughts and am ready to press the shutter button. It's lighting fast!

So yes, I know that you are all generally against these superzoom walkabout multi-purpose lenses, but it seems to be indeed just what I require for my particular needs. And if at some point I have a studio set up where I can put the buggers on the table and tell them to sit there until I say go, with lighting, backdrop and two helpers to keep them in the centre, I'll get myself a nice 100mm lens just for those photo shoots. For now, I think I'm all set! Veeerrrry happy! VERY!

And another thing is, the build quality is fantastic. Love the feel of it, the weight. But the main plus point is, of course that it looks nice: it is big and chunky and comes out quite far on full zoom, which, I hear, is quite fashionable at the moment. :cool::cool::cool:

Your comments (I hope they will be congratulations) are very welcome. And I hope it helps someone whose needs are similar to mine.

Oksana
 
Rabbits, fast? What are you doing to them? Are you sure they're not hares?
 
Merluza said:
Rabbits, fast? What are you doing to them? Are you sure they're not hares?
Click to expand...

They just rarely sit still. :-D Unless they're asleep, that is. But a lot of the time, yes, they can be fast. Especially if they know you got food. But they are definitely pet rabbits.
 
Last edited:
Great write up, but don't get too hung up on dust - I have had DSLRs for years and the only time I am wary about changing lenses is on a beach in a gale with sand blowing about. I generally turn my back to the wind if outside and that is it, and have never had any problems whatsoever. I mainly photograph dogs,so there is lots of hair about. I have never heard of anyone washing their hands and hair in order to change a lens!

In the unlikely event you do get dirt on the sensor it is simple to clean off, but I have only ever had to do it once.
 
Yes, good write-up, Oksana, and congrats. It's an all-purpose zoom and you're right that some turn their noses up at them. But you've thought it through thoroughly.

Just a thought of my own here. Have you considered getting a used prime lens as well for shots like this? 50mm, or equivalent? Not too expensive and useful to have around. Nice depth-of-field, sharp too, bigger aperture, probably less risk of camera-shake at lower ISO settings... But I get the idea behind needing a zoom too.
 
Last edited:
Sam Tip said:
Yes, good write-up, Oksana, and congrats. It's an all-purpose zoom, and you're right that some turn their noses up at them. But you've thought it through thoroughly.

Just a thought of my own here. Have you considered getting a used prime lens as well for shots like this? 50mm, or equivalent? Not too expensive and useful to have around. Nice depth-of-field, sharp too, bigger aperture, probably less risk of camera-shake at lower ISO settings... But I get the idea behind needing a zoom too.
Click to expand...

Hi, and thank you for your response and a helpful suggestion. You have confirmed my suspicions re. needing a prime lens, and yes, I've been considering one, but more like 100mm than 50mm though, as I would use it for producing bunny portraits for our annual calendar that the rescue has printed as a fundraiser, as well as photo books etc. I'm in the process of thinking through a mini-studio setup for that, but I struggle to find something 100mm or equivalent for a cropped sensor (it's 1.5 crop factor, so I understand it'd need to be between 83 and 90mm lens for APS-C, Nikon fit), but I've struggled to find anything like that. I'll get my dad on board today. He might find me something. He's WAAAAYYYYY better at this than I am! :)
 
BunnyPics said:
Hi, and thank you for your response and a helpful suggestion. You have confirmed my suspicions re. needing a prime lens, and yes, I've been considering one, but more like 100mm than 50mm though, as I would use it for producing bunny portraits for our annual calendar that the rescue has printed as a fundraiser, as well as photo books etc. I'm in the process of thinking through a mini-studio setup for that, but I struggle to find something 100mm or equivalent for a cropped sensor (it's 1.5 crop factor, so I understand it'd need to be between 83 and 90mm lens for APS-C, Nikon fit), but I've struggled to find anything like that. I'll get my dad on board today. He might find me something. He's WAAAAYYYYY better at this than I am! :)
Click to expand...


Do you mean you want 100mm after the crop factor as been added in. If so it about 66mm gives 100mm if understand what your saying. A 50mm we give you 75mm quivalent. If you went for a 85mm lens that would give you 127mm approx

Judging but what you said above about having to crawl closer to bunnys I would suggest looking for a 85mm or from a different brand (sigma, tamron) 70mm which would give you 105mm

I shoot canon so don't know nothing about Nikon
 
An option would be a 90mm macro lens, good for portraits with the added benefit of it being a macro.
 
The newly announced Sigma Art 50-100 f/1.8 ?
We'll have to wait on full reviews, but if it's as good as the rest of the Art range, them maybe you don't want a Prime...
Oh, we'll have to wait on the cost too...
 
Thank you all for your tips and suggestions.

Yes, I meant about 100mm real focal length (~66mm on my cropped sensor). I need it for doing high-quality bunny portrait work for our annual calendars and various other printed materials, like photo books that we do for the rabbits' supporters. It will be done in a mini-studio setup, so crawling will not be an issue. But, with the space that I have available in the house, even 100mm is a push. I set up my current 18-250mm Sigma to 66mm (which would give me 100ml full frame equivalent), and tried it in my space, and that's frankly a bit of push. I can do that but can't go over that.

So, after a day of intense deliberations and discussion with my dad, we came up with Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm f/ 2.8 G ED. A recent model, apparently, which would give me what I want re. quality of the shots and would suit my space. And, if I ever inherit his full frame Nikon (which he says I will when I buy him D5), it will fit it too, and he says, on his current full-frame it will give me even better quality shots!

Now, I just need to buy my new lens and I need to buy my dad Nikon D5.:eek:
 
Hi Oksana, Great review. I purchased the tamron 18-200 before Christmas, not for rabbits though, two kids! They tend to move around a bit as well. I'm really pleased with it and no longer swap between my 18-55 or 70-300, the difference between 200 and 300 seems to be very little anyway. My only concern was that my old 70-300 was the cheap one and wasn't all that great at focusing, but the new one is so much quicker. It's also great for landscape as the front element doesn't turn. I haven't swapped lenses now for 4 months!
 
I loved the lens but have now sold it. Probably a mistake... but unless out in bright sunlight and with the aperture closed a little, it was a bit too soft for doing the rabbits. The fur and whiskers were really soft on open apertures and it drove me mad. I have now changed to Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX IF Nikkor (and changed the camera to D300s) and it's been great, though I do have to zoom with my legs a lot. Will be getting Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D as the new camera has built-in focus motor.
 
How much did you get for the lens btw? I only ask as I may be selling one soon :)
 
BunnyPics said:
I loved the lens but have now sold it. Probably a mistake... but unless out in bright sunlight and with the aperture closed a little, it was a bit too soft for doing the rabbits. The fur and whiskers were really soft on open apertures and it drove me mad. I have now changed to Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX IF Nikkor (and changed the camera to D300s) and it's been great, though I do have to zoom with my legs a lot. Will be getting Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D as the new camera has built-in focus motor.
Click to expand...

Unless you were doing something massively wrong the prime should give much better image quality compared to the kit lens. Obviously wide open the depth of field would be very narrow so most of the object would be out of focus but that is not the same as not being sharp and of course you could always stop the lens down to get more in focus...

edit: oh, wait a minute, you were talking about the superzoom :coat:
 
Last edited:
The person who sold it to me on eBay, sent a receipt with it from a camera shop which had £140 on it, but I bought it from him for £160. I put it on eBay, at 99p starting price for 7 day auction ending on a Sunday afternoon (that's the way to do it, in my experience) and got £175 for it. I hope it helps to decide on the price. :)
 
Nawty said:
Unless you were doing something massively wrong the prime should give much better image quality compared to the kit lens. Obviously wide open the depth of field would be very narrow so most of the object would be out of focus but that is not the same as not being sharp and of course you could always stop the lens down to get more in focus...

edit: oh, wait a minute, you were talking about the superzoom :coat:
Click to expand...
Yes :)
This was not a prime. This was Sigma 18-250mm OS Macro HSM.
 
Super-zooms don't have a great rep for optical performance, but TBF they are more than capable of sharp images that will please all but pixel peepers. For your application, with respect ;) I would suspect technique might be an issue. At close distance, focusing is even more critical, and in anything less than good light at longer zoom settings, camera-shake and subject movement will be a potential problem. Push ISO to get faster shutter speeds. Flash might be needed.

Use the lens aberrations correction in Lightroom. It will fix CA, distortion and vignetting automatically.
 
HoppyUK said:
Super-zooms don't have a great rep for optical performance, but TBF they are more than capable of sharp images that will please all but pixel peepers. For your application, with respect ;) I would suspect technique might be an issue. At close distance, focusing is even more critical, and in anything less than good light at longer zoom settings, camera-shake and subject movement will be a potential problem. Push ISO to get faster shutter speeds. Flash might be needed.

Use the lens aberrations correction in Lightroom. It will fix CA, distortion and vignetting automatically.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the input :) all good points, of course. But the lens was not for me.
Yes, most of my work is in bad lighting, and with moving subjects, that have fine fur so sharpness is desirable, so the faster the better for me. Sigma gave me so much noise on high ISO. Yes, have external flash, and I was maxing it out with Sigma. But tbh that lens had too much zoom for my needs anyway, and at the expense of phaffing with it to get the quality I was after... I get a lot more out of 18-70mm even on wide apertures, and I haven't felt the lack of zoom. It only takes a little bit of flash and slightly upped ISO and off we go
 
BunnyPics said:
Thank you for the input :) all good points, of course. But the lens was not for me.
Yes, most of my work is in bad lighting, and with moving subjects, that have fine fur so sharpness is desirable, so the faster the better for me. Sigma gave me so much noise on high ISO. Yes, have external flash, and I was maxing it out with Sigma. But tbh that lens had too much zoom for my needs anyway, and at the expense of phaffing with it to get the quality I was after... I get a lot more out of 18-70mm even on wide apertures, and I haven't felt the lack of zoom. It only takes a little bit of flash and slightly upped ISO and off we go
Click to expand...
The lens isn't giving you the noise, that comes from your camera :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top