 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 34
Hi,
I am new here. Hi, I am a beginner from Perth (put intermediate as I know a little).
I definitely have the photography bug eg. some nice long exposure shots
http://instagram.com/p/BYvBUqBhaLI/
I use a f2.8 Tamron 15-50mm lens, but would love a telephoto lens (ideally f2.8 but best value.)
Any easy suggestions? Especially in Perth?
eg. the original[top]Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 Lens
would be nice.
Or anything brand new?
I would also consider an all purpose lens (ideally f2.8.)
Thank you
Last edited by Ilovebokeh; 08-09-2017 at 12:17pm.
why would you love a telephoto lens? Yes it is nice to go 'i want' but until you know what you are going to do with anything you want, then it is pointless.
So tell us, what do you think a telephoto lens is going to do for your photography?
After all, I want a tractor, I think it would be great.. But I live in a suburb and have no use for a tractor whatsoever. So I buy it and put it in the garage and look at it on the weekends.
Get my point? Tell us what you would like to do with this telephoto lens and then we just might be able to suggest something to suit your needs.
Last edited by ricktas; 08-09-2017 at 12:24pm.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Apart from your intended use it also helps to know what camera you will use it on, ie Full Frame or Crop Sensor.
Last edited by Cage; 08-09-2017 at 12:32pm.
Cheers
Kev
Nikon D810: D600 (Astro Modded): D7200 and 'stuff', lots of 'stuff'
hehe. It is in the thread title "best value telephoto lens for Nikon d5500? "Originally Posted by Cage
Threadstarter
Thank you.
I want flexibility (I know, that it is expensive.)
I assume this new lens will give me greater options, especially:
- shallow depth of field portraits
- fun zoom options in the field beyond my current 50mm
Pardon my lack of reading skills.
Perhaps something like a 70-200mm f2.8 would suit your requirements. That would give you the FF equivalent of 105-300mm on the D5500. I can recommend the Tamron at half the price of the Nikon model.
OK so your primary use it portraiture. I would agree that a 70-200 f2.8 is probably a good choice. However if you do not want a zoom, some of the primes are good. The Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro lens makes a great portrait lens. As do the 105mm macros on the market. Most macro lenses double up as good portrait lenses.
So now you have to decide if you want a zoom telephoto or a prime telephoto. Once you work that out, get back to us and we can delve deeper into a specific lens to meet your needs.
Threadstarter
I am appreciating your replying skills.Pardon my lack of reading skills.
Perhaps something like a 70-200mm f2.8 would suit your requirements. That would give you the FF equivalent of 105-300mm on the D5500. I can recommend the Tamron at half the price of the Nikon model.
Yes, this is my leading candidate. Quoted $1700 new. It is heavy (1kg) but I could manage.
Beautiful lens.
- - - Updated - - -
thank you.
Yes, there is a beautiful f1.8 prime 85 mm tamron lens for $1000. Tempting to get it simply for portaitrure, but would hate to lose the flexibilty of my 70-200 choice.
I guess I could get a prime portraiture lens above and then a third lens?
I'd say that he 70-200/2.8 VC from Tamron would be an ideal candidate too.
Maybe a bit long for portraits in some situations, but as you've just listed the 50mm in the mix, then the focal length won't be an issue.
Sigma 50-100/1.8 sounds like an interesting option, but I reckon they stuffed up by making it somethign like 50-100m and not more like 70-150/1.8 instead.
Many folks already have a cheap 50/1.8 to play with so more varied options would have been a marketing advantage I guess.
100mm even on APS-C is probably just a tad short for the long end. But you can't go past that f/1.8 aperture without paying a bit of respect for it and the fact it's a zoom.
"Fun zoom options in the field" tho .. that basically screams 70-200/2.8
I've just been out playing in the front yard in the rain with my 70-200/2.8 on the D5500, and while it's hard(no image stabilisation), that cropped reach is a bit of fun to play with again.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Be aware that there are three versions of this lens currently on offer.
- Tamron SP AF 70-200 F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens - Stay away from it
- Tamron Lens SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (IF) - The one I had, it's a ripper, and only sold to get a longer lens
- Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 - The G2 is an update of the one above and a lot dearer, but not a lot better
Make sure that it has 'VC' in the title and if you shop around you will find one for a lot less than $1700.00
Have a look here http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ld_your_camera for some tips on holding your camera. Basically you tuck your left elbow into your side and hold the lens foot in your left hand.
Threadstarter
Thank you!
- - - Updated - - -
Thank you!
This is why I love asking experts.
This is my $1700 in Perth. The store price match 'reputable' sellers that have AUS warranties (eg. they don't match Kogan and Amazon)
*removed - please read the site rules, in particular rule #3*
Any help suggesting other sites to search is appreciated.
thank you!
- - - Updated - - -
PS> I have a physical limitation so my left hand shakes. Thus. I usually use my SLR one handed (with high shutter speed to compensate) or, preferably, set up with a tripod.
Hence the bulkier tamron telephoto lens is ok, as I use a tripod most of the time anyway.
Last edited by ricktas; 09-09-2017 at 7:51am.
Err yes and no!(alternatively; kind'a sort'a)
For many folks I would agree, as the focusing can be a PITA.
This is the 'old' model that I have, and 99.9% of the time, it works well enough.
Normal focusing(ie. through the vf) even on the lowly D5500 is perfectly acceptable most of (that 99.9%) the time.
I now have three liveview capable Nikon's and this is where the caveat comes in .. it simply won't focus in Lv mode. Tries too, but just won't move the internals to actually focus.
For me, not a major issue, as I don't use Lv and focus all that much, and most of the time I'm also on a tripod.
From samples I've seen online, I think the older model still seems to have an edge at 200mm and f/2.8 in terms of contrast(ie. sharpness).
Obviously it doesn't have VC like the two newer models do have. Having briefly tested the first version of this lens I was ready to push the buy it now button on one from any source .. but life got in the way of playtime and that idea kind'a got lost, so I never got around to it.
So for many folks, I'd agree with Kev's comment re the first version.
The other focus issue I've noticed, on the D5500 only, is that if the lens is focused at one of the extremes, it doesn't initially want to move it's position to the other end of the focus range(in vf focus mode).
That is; if the lens is focused at the MFD(min focus position), it makes a buzz noise like it wants to refocus, but it doesn't actually move to focus. But if you re activate the AF(ie. half press again) it then moves and focuses quickly(enough) and accurately.
Same if you've focused at infinity, and want to AF to MFD, the lens will make a short buzz(AF quickly going but not moving), then the second half press will eventually move the AF.
Never seen that on D300 or D800, so it may be a thirdparty lens feature Nikon built into the D5500!
Sorry to hear about your physical limitation too.
But if you do get a 70-200/2.8 type lens, try to never hold the D5500+70-200/2.8 type lens via the camera body only ... at any time!
D5500 feels wayyyyyy to flimsy to hold a large heavy lens such as this. Even the 1kg Tammy 24-70VC lens feels like a strain on the poor little D5500.
Having connected my old T70-200/2.8 yesterday, I'd be extremely cautious holding the D5500 from the grip .. and it'd probably be a natural way to move the combo to hold it via the lens anyhow(due to the D5500 being so small).
I can't imagine anyone having the ability and dexterity to hold a D5500 + 70-200/2.8 one handed from the camera body and shooting.
But! knowing now what we know re your limitation and the point that you'd use it on a tripod anyhow .. I'd be inclined to recommend the older 'Macro' version of this lens .... with the caveat that you don't use AF in Lv mode a lot.
On a tripod you don't need(or want) the VC feature anyhow, and since the price of the older lens is vastly reduced compared to the newer versions, those savings could net you other goodies.
And a note on other goodies is that teleconverters work pretty well on these types of lenses(from what I've seen in reviews).
I have had plans to test my own TC on it one day .. it's just not one of those priorities to get done.
In saying all that tho .. I still have eventual plans to update my T70-200/2.8 to one of the VC models one day tho.
And for me it's simply the want for the VC feature, and I'm more inclined to go with the G2 version too, as I like geeky USB docks too.
Threadstarter
thank you, great info. Any idea where to find one please?
There is the samyang 135mm f2 which has good glass and is cheap. But no VR and is manual only. So mostly best for composed portriture.
It does take nice pics though, with good bokeh. I suggest you type in one the lenses mentioned above then add flkr, that way you can see the outcome.
Your guess would be as good as mine.
Check the usual places... ebay, online retailers, etc.
I don't know if they still make it, so it may be a discontinued item .. could be a tad cheaper if still in stock.
No, no, no, no, no!Basically you tuck your left elbow into your side and hold the lens foot in your left hand.
Don't do that! It is a recipe for camera shake. Don't even think about doing it that way.
For any given focal length and shutter speed, the amount of camera shake in a shot is determined by four factors.
- Forward and backward movement of the camera (closer to and further away from the subject). Always insignificant except for macro work, which is not what we are considering here.
- Rotation of the camera perpendicular to the lens. (E.g. twisting from horizon-level to horizon-not-level.) Generally not significant. (Might become a factor shooting from a small boat on a rough sea, or shooting one-handed, otherwise irrelevant.)
- Horizontal movement of the lens. (Tip of the lens goes from side to side.) Always important.
- Vertical movement of the lens. (Tip of the lens goes up and down.) Always important.
Normally, only the last two factors matter. For simplicity we need only consider the vertical component as the factors leading to visible shake and the steps needed to control it are the same for either one. The amount of camera shake visible is determined by the angular movement of the lens relative to the field of view. Both numbers matter. Suppose the lens moves up or down by 1 degree during the period when the shutter is open.
- If you have a 500mm lens on a D5500, your field of view is about 2.5 degrees. A 1 degree movement will result in a shot that is hopelessly blurred, with the subject quite possibly unrecognisable.
- If you have a 10mm ultra-wide on the D5500, your field of view is about 100 degrees. A 1 degree movement wouldn't go unnoticed but you'd probably get away with it on a smallish print. You would certainly be able to recognise the subject. A 100% crop would show it up, of course. The point, however, is that, even with the same angular movement, the amount of blur is vastly lower with a wider angle lens.
This is why camera movement and image stabilisation are so important with telephoto lenses - the longer the lens, the smaller the field of view, and the smaller the field of view, the worse the effect of any given amount of shake.
Now, suppose that your left hand moves up or down by 1mm during a shot. (That's not very much at all.) Taking my 100-400 II as a representative example of a mid-size telephoto lens, the centre of the lens foot is 100mm in front of the focal plane; the objective lens is 270mm from it. Your angular movement (which is what produces blur) is 0.57 degrees when you hold it by the lens foot - i.e., enough to create a lot of blur.
Now hold the lens the proper way - as close to the far end as practicable. (With any well-designed telephoto lens, there is a convenient grip immediately behind the lens hood, though if the hood is strong enough you can go one better and hold the hood itself if the lens is not too heavy.) On the 100-400 II, the lens hood starts about 250mm from the focal plane. We do the maths again and discover exactly what common sense suggests we will discover: for that same 1mm up and down hand movement, we now get only 0.23 degrees of angular movement - less than half as much. Yes, your arm is now further away from your body so your hand probably moves a fraction more, but not nearly enough more to produce an equally bad result. We are well in front. (In fact, to get a result as bad as the one we got by holding the lens foot, we would have to move our hand by 2.5mm.
Conservatively, we can say in round figures that holding the lens the proper way instead of by the lens foot results in half the angular movement, and in consequence half the blur.
This rule applies to pretty much any telephoto lens. I won't bore you with the maths, but I just checked it with the only other two telephoto lenses I have handy, a 70-300 and a 600/4. The results are the same within a sensible margin of error. Hold the lens properly, halve the blur.
OPMy suggestionPS> I have a physical limitation so my left hand shakes. Thus. I usually use my SLR one handed (with high shutter speed to compensate) or, preferably, set up with a tripod.was to try to give the OP some sort of stability in the left hand/arm without reaching. However the weight of a 70-200 f2.8 will pretty much necessitate the use of a tripod.Basically you tuck your left elbow into your side and hold the lens foot in your left hand
Fair enough Kev. I was conscious of not directly addressing the OP's query in a useful way as I wrote. On the other hand, I often see supposed "expert" professional photographers on Youtube doing that idiotic hold-the-lens-foot thing, and certainly didn't want to see anyone here thinking it was best practice, 'coz it ain't. (Setting aside special needs, that is.) I did start to write an extra part about good lens choices, but decided half-way through that it wasn't really adding anything much of value, so I crossed it out.
But your mention of a "heavy 70-200/2.8" just sparked an idea which might be worth following up. In the Canon world, there is a 55-250 IS kit lens. It's a cheap plastic thing which you'd reckon would be horrible, but it isn't. In fact, optically, it is amazingly good for the money and not half bad compared to even far more expensive models. And it has very effective IS too. Best of all, it weighs practically nothing.
Obviously that won't fit on a Nikon body, but perhaps Nikon have a similar product. (Most of the kit lenses seem to have pretty direct equivalents in Canonland and Nikonia. Do they copy each other? Or just see the same main needs and fill them in similar ways?)
Assuming such a lens exists, it mightn't be quite as good as a much heavier, more expensive lens, but (if it is similar to the Canon one) the ultra-light weight might more than make up for that. And, of course, save quite a lot of money.
Not 100% sure on what is good nowadays and what itsn't.
I've had the chance to briefly use an older gen Nikon 18-200(VR 1 model) .. not impressed with it much. OK-ish, but not for the price they want for them.
Gen 2 model(the VRII) is supposedly better, but at the same money as you can get a Tamron 70-200/2.8!
Other tele options for Dx are the new AF-P model 70-300 f/4.5-6.3(note the f/6.3 aperture here too tho!!)
Image quality looks ok from the sample images I've seen from it(taken in context here too tho!).
Lens is cheap, and works on a D5500.
** for any others looking for tele lens advise, note that AF-P lenses only work well on a limited range of Nikon bodies .. check if yours does/doesn't.
Another really cheap and useful lens I've had time to play with recently is Nikon's 18-140VR.
It's got the typical transmission loss that all these lens types are typically affected with, but pretty sharp across the focal length spectrum, focuses much faster than older gen kit lenses I've tried(still have the old 18-105VR too).
140mm focal length on a Dx frame is fairly 'telephoto'. It's not going to capture twitchy little yellow bellied sap suckers from 100m away, but for an easy to use hold the camera(+lens) in one handed mode .. it works quite OK.
I have a lot of trouble using the D5500 in one handed operation mode (my hand is just way too big for it to sit comfy).
It the D5500 operator is comfortable holding the D5500 one handed to begin with, then the 18-140VR lens won't be an additional burden for them.
I know that the 18-200VR lenses are much bigger and front heavier so may be less usable in 'one handed operation mode'.
And the dinky little 70-300 AF-P lens seems to defy gravity. It feels so light and dinky, that it could be filled with helium, and you could float away with it.
You just don't expect that on a '300mm' lens. You know they're going to get long as you zoom to 300mm, and they usually get heavier too, but this thing just feels like 'nothing' .. easy to handhold at 300mm, how well the pics come out is another matter tho.
The other option could be the AF-S 18-300 f/3.5-6.3(NOTE! not the f/3.5-5.6 model).
The f/6.3 model weighs in at 550g, the f/5.6 model weighs in at 830g. While it's less than 300g(which is really insignificant) the issue would be when the lens is set to 300mm, and it extends it's physical length. it then becomes very front heavy!
I'm looking to get the 55-300VR or 18-300VR(f/6.3 versions) as replacement for the old 18-105VR .. for the kids. Depending on overall IQ and usability and stuff tho.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
