You get what you pay for.....

jigga1980

jigga1980

Messages
156
Edit My Images
Yes
I went to see a band 'Neotopia' at a pub last night, was a mate's mate from school. Didn't know where it was so took my camera.

It was a very dark pub candlelit, to make it worse there were lights behind the band but they were led type lights which didn't help trying to expose the people.

I had taken my flash sb-600 but they just look a bit unnatural even with it backed off.

D40 + 18-55 kit lens.

While I was there I noticed a lad with something like a D200, it was a EOS D5 iirc, not familiar with Cannon naming conventions :bonk:

He had a 100mm macro 2.8, comparing the shots you could really see the difference in quality, we had same iso and same shutter coincidently but I was at F4 and him 2.8. Both at 1/50 and 3200 ISO.

I know you can't really judge photos on the lcd screen but the difference was mega. It just brought it home when we had the same conditions and shots on the same (close as I could) settings. I guess my kit was maybe £250-£300 new his maybe more like £1500?

It's a little frustrating that I'm getting to the limits of my equipment quite a lot. Motorsport, lens is too slow focusing and not 2.8 and not enough reach (55-200 kit)lol. I can still take OK shots, but know I could get much better shots with better equipment. Unless it's a very bright day I struggle to get something as sharp as I would like.

I had been toying with the idea of a 28-70 2.8 sigma/tamron as many shots I take with my 18-55 are usually in poor lit environments. I know this would still be coupled to my d40, but I can always upgrade that in the future.

As far as motorsport, there is no cheap lens!

An another note I was surprised how light his camera was, even with a battery grip. Felt sort of easier to handle even though it was bigger :shrug:

When I was looking through his photos, liked that you could see ap/shutter settings while viewing the photo. On my nikon you have all that info over the top of the photo.
 
To be fair it's not just down to a better lens, a camera sensor's ability to handle higher ISO's will have a major impact on the quality of the pictures (as well as the user's technique). If it was a 5d, that is a Full-Frame camera....comparing the output of that to your D40 isn't really fair. ;)
 
the lad was shooting f2.8 which meant more light came through his lens than yours, also if he had a 5d they will have an ultimate advantage in iso than your d40. the focal lengths you want would require a few lenses, for motorsport you would want a 70-300mm and the aperture wouldnt matter as much with motorsport because alot is shot with f8 and its normally day for most events. i would go for a 50mm f1.4 because it will be good for most shots or consider the 85mm f1.8 with will be longer if you need that extra reach. if it was me i would go for

tamron 17-50mm f2.8
nikon vr 70-300mm
nikon 85mm f1.8

these three will be a brill set-up.
 
Yup, there is a big difference with constant aperture lenses, especially when zoomed in and it allows you to shoot two stops faster. You would notice a bigger difference getting a new lens than a new body. I got the 35mm f/1.8G and its awesome, I would highly recommend it for this type of shooting.
 
Agree with Fuuudge. Get a cheap 50mm f1.8 or similar. It will make a massive difference in poor lighting, especially at music gigs. You'll be able to comfortably drop your ISO from 3200 to 400 if you shoot at f1.8.

I shoot with a Canon 5D2 and I have the cheap £60 50mm f1.8. It's essential in low light and makes a huge difference.
 
I know it's not a fair comparison, but it shows what you can do with the right equipment.

As you say, the 5d would handle to higher iso much better. Granted his composition was better too, he has obviously done that before. You don't just have a 5d for taking your holiday snaps :D

If I was to get any of these lenses you mentioned

tamron 17-50mm f2.8
nikon vr 70-300mm
nikon 85mm f1.8

Would they work with a higer end nikon ok? I assume the new models rely on the lenses with built in motors too?

Just seen replies when I was composing this, isn't the 50 m/f only? Don't know If I could hack that, although for the amount of
times I would be using it I guess worth the compromise. Had a 50mm 1.8 iirc back in my manual slr days, very handy in those scenarios.
 
jigga1980 said:
If I was to get any of these lenses you mentioned

tamron 17-50mm f2.8
nikon vr 70-300mm
nikon 85mm f1.8

Would they work with a higer end nikon ok? I assume the new models rely on the lenses with built in motors too?

Just seen replies when I was composing this, isn't the 50 m/f only? Don't know If I could hack that, although for the amount of
times I would be using it I guess worth the compromise. Had a 50mm 1.8 iirc back in my manual slr days, very handy in those scenarios.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by 'higher-end' ;) The only one that won't work properly with a Full-Frame Nikon is the Tamron (it is a DX lens only) - all three of them are fine up to D300/D300s level.

The 50mm f/1.8 being referred to is AF-D which means it is MF only on bodies without a body-driven motor.
 
On a D40 (and D60) the cheaper 50mm f/1.8 will be MF but the aperture will be automatic. MF on a DSLR with a plain screen isn't ideal but can be done (but is easier in good light).

The 70-300 VR works very well on a D700. The higher end models have an AF motor built into the body so don't rely on the lenses having built in motors (AF-S, HSM or similar).

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems to be a Di II lens so will be suitable for crop sensor bodies (D300) but not for FF bodies (D3(x) and D700).
 
I don't know Nikon gear very well so I can't help much. My advice would be to stick with the lenses with built in motors. Although they'll be OK optically, the others are well past it as far as AF is concerned. As far as I'm aware just about any Nikon lens fits on any Nikon camera with a few exceptions. Naturally, if you ever plan to upgrade to a full frame camera (D700 or D3 etc) then you may be better sticking to full frame lenses instead of the ones made for the consumer bodies like the D40 etc.
 
I've seen a few 50's on sale here, something that would be handy.

As far as 'higher' end, possibility of upgrading to a D90 or something like that in the future.
 
Why not go for either a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 35mm f/1.8? Both of them would AF fine on your D40. Personally I didn't like using a 50mm lens on a cropped-sensor body whereas the 30mm felt 'right' so to speak.
 
As I said in another post about shooting in nightclubs, cant go wrong with f2.8. I have a couple (see my sig) Tamron and a Sigma. Both way better than the kit f3.4 lens.
 
Yup, I would suggest getting the 35mm over the 50mm for a D40, mainly for the AF but also due to the 52.5mm equvilent focal length on a APS-C body. And if you are going to be shooting wide open your DOF will be very shallow, and trying to focus properly will be a pain, but maybe thats just me.

I just snapped this to show you how shallow the DOF is at f/1.8, so having AF is really helpful.

 
TheOracle said:
My advice would be to stick with the lenses with built in motors. Although they'll be OK optically, the others are well past it as far as AF is concerned.
Click to expand...

That's not true by any means, although for a D40 you do need to stick with AF-S lenses, its too general a statement - for example the older 50mm f1:1.4 af-d lens has far better AF then the new AF-S version, not alot of difference between the 80-200 AF-D and the (current) 70-200 AF-S for AF speed either


Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
That's not true by any means, although for a D40 you do need to stick with AF-S lenses, its too general a statement - for example the older 50mm f1:1.4 af-d lens has far better AF then the new AF-S version, not alot of difference between the 80-200 AF-D and the (current) 70-200 AF-S for AF speed either


Hugh
Click to expand...

Oh well, I apologise. Like I said, I don't know much about Nikon gear at all.
 
Fuuudge said:
Yup, there is a big difference with constant aperture lenses, especially when zoomed in and it allows you to shoot two stops faster. You would notice a bigger difference getting a new lens than a new body. I got the 35mm f/1.8G and its awesome, I would highly recommend it for this type of shooting.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that to an extent. Yes generally faster lenses are better than getting a new camera, but not all the time. You have to deal with DoF for one, and you will end up with something far bigger and more expensive (for example going from a 50mm f/1.8 to a 50mm f/1.2, or even a 300mm f/4 to a 300mm f/2.8), whereas getting a new camera you could easily end up with one or two stops better noise control for an extra couple of hundred £.

For example my 400D really struggles over ISO 400 (it's pretty much unuseable at 800 or 1600) however if I spent £400 on a new 40D (or even a bit more on a used 5D) I would easily gain 2 stops of noise control and better/more features (eg AF and exposure). Now compare that to 2 stops gain for a lens and that could cost you in the thousands. Yes lenses are generally the better buy, but depending on your camera and lens combination to begin with definately not all the time.

So for the OP I would suggest getting a better camera as well as a better lens.
 
Lol a new camera and lens would be ideal!

See what you're saying amp34 regarding the camera itself.

Fuudge, great example of DOF forgot how shallow it was on a 1.8!

I agree, the 50mm would be too narrow for the type of shots I would be donig.

Although I've just found out I'm getting made redundant, so the only photos I will be taking will be of the job centre :lol:
 
He's always going to beat you at high ISO with a full frame camera, but you could do a heck of a lot better just by using a 50 1.8 lens. And that wouldn't be an expensive outfit at all.

50mm is equivalent field of view to 75mm on full frame, and depth of field will be almost exactly the same at f/1.8 on a crop body as f/2.8 on full frame, so you're matching him quite closely there. Plus, dropping from f/4 to f/1.8 you could change your ISO from 3200 to about 650 which would make a massive difference to noise and dynamic range.

All of which doesn't explain why you were a stop different on exposure, but assuming you were not underexposed, the jump in quality there would be very substantial. I think your f/number and hence ISO was the biggest difference, not the relative cost of kit (although it all counts, obviously ;) ).
 
HoppyUK said:
All of which doesn't explain why you were a stop different on exposure, but assuming you were not underexposed, the jump in quality there would be very substantial. I think your f/number and hence ISO was the biggest difference, not the relative cost of kit (although it all counts, obviously ;) ).
Click to expand...

My lens only goes to 3.5, I was zoomed in slightly 18 was far too wide. Hence F4.

Had a look of them last night on the pc, the one's with the flash were ok in terms of exposure just didn't look too natural. Although better than my mate with his compact and white faces/red eyes!
 
Get a 50mm f1.8 at least, and a f1.4 if you can afford it, for low light shoots
Remember, most zoom lenses work best between f11 an f16.
Never shoot at ISOs above 800. If you have to, your using the wrong lens.
These pearls of wisdom were given to me by a professional whom, among other things, has won the BBC London Photographer of the year award, and has photos appearing in the national newspapers on an almost daily basis.

P.S. While you out of work, go out and shoot lots of photography, and upload them to some stock photography sites like www.picturenation.co.uk. Who knows, you could end up earning a living through photography.
 
@Mastertrinity "i would go for a 50mm f1.4"

I wouldnt... Ever shot a gig, close up to the performers with an aperture of 1.4? I tried it for 5 minutes and if I focused on a performers face, the guitar would be in the bokeh zone, if I focused on the guitar, the head of the guitar was in the boker zone. For a close up gig I personally wouldnt go below 3.5, 2.8 at a stretch.

With pub gigs you can get away with a certain amount of flash, I would've used some rear sync on board flash powered at about 1/128 or 1/64. Doesnt **** anyone in the pub off with that and you'll easily get the shots.

Ive done that plenty of times, in places lit with them horrible small wall mounted lights.

James
 
I had tried backing the flash off, but came out blurred. Hadn't used flash in manual before so didn't bother messing too much. Was too intimate for me to be going in there like a paparazzi trying to get a shot of Paris Hiltons arse.
 
Jamesbuk said:
@Mastertrinity "i would go for a 50mm f1.4"

I wouldnt... Ever shot a gig, close up to the performers with an aperture of 1.4? I tried it for 5 minutes and if I focused on a performers face, the guitar would be in the bokeh zone, if I focused on the guitar, the head of the guitar was in the boker zone. For a close up gig I personally wouldnt go below 3.5, 2.8 at a stretch.

With pub gigs you can get away with a certain amount of flash, I would've used some rear sync on board flash powered at about 1/128 or 1/64. Doesnt **** anyone in the pub off with that and you'll easily get the shots.

Ive done that plenty of times, in places lit with them horrible small wall mounted lights.

James
Click to expand...

i didnt mean the settings i meant the lens. i would never ever go less than f4 for that kind of photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top