D3100

[tasherlock]

After 12 months waiting to afford a D3100 the moment will finally arrive in 2/3 weeks. Comes with 18-55 as usual. Wondered which would be the best way to go for a second lens. Looking forward to using the camera.

[ricktas]

what do you shoot? landscapes, portraits, sports? The second lens should be based on what genre you like to shoot.

[Mary Anne]

Then there is Macro Lens for Insects and Flowers. And a Telephoto lens for Birds, Wildlife and more Flowers.

[ameerat42]

An ultra wide angle lens?

[arthurking83]

Before recommending other lenses, as already stated .. it's best to indicate to the members what your goals are.
What is your preferred photography subject matter.

35mm f/1.8 can be a fun lens to have access too for a lot of general usage.

[Dazz1]

I am pondering the same thing. Which second lens, after the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera (600D in my case). A wide aperture prime lens is often recommended though. I definitely want a macro, and I also envy those with a good long telephoto - so it's just a matter of which one first.

[tasherlock]

Thanks for the interest. I am interested in landscape and nature. Am considering the 55-200 as a start. I feel the 2 lenses will cover those interests for a while yet. So much to learn and enjoy in that package.

[Dazz1]

Thanks for the interest. I am interested in landscape and nature. Am considering the 55-200 as a start. I feel the 2 lenses will cover those interests for a while yet. So much to learn and enjoy in that package.

When I looked at zoom/tele I was wondering if something that went to 300mm or more would be better. I was looking at 70-300mm actually. I wonder what the experts think is needed.

[deef]

The Nikon 70-300 VR is a pretty good lens. I like mine. A couple of pix from it are in this thread.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?121619-Wellington-Point-afternoon

The thing to watch is that there is a couple of versions though. The non VR version is very cheap (about the same price as a 55-200 VR) but it is not a great lens. You definitely get what you pay for. The 55-200 is better for the same money. The VR version of the 70-300, which I have, while more expensive, has better image quality and therefore better value in the longer term.

[tasherlock]

Thanks for your reply John. Finances limit me to the 55-200 with VR and I look forward to using it. Now have the camera and learning to use it. Has anyone tried the free course in DSLR with Karl Taylor.

[William]

Thanks for your reply John. Finances limit me to the 55-200 with VR and I look forward to using it. Now have the camera and learning to use it. Has anyone tried the free course in DSLR with Karl Taylor.

IMO I think your better off looking at the AP Beginner courses and Tutes here on AP , I had a look at his Videos and a lot of the stuff you will get with practice , All you need to learn is the Photographic Triangle , Which is Aperture , ISO and shutter speed, Once you have that the sky's the limit , Save your money and go out and shoot , Post the pics on here for CC and you WILL learn , A lot more cheaply , BTW most of the shots that he showed were shot in a studio environment with a lot of real expensive gear which many of us will never aspire to having , Would be good though :) Your on the Sunshine Coast , Look at the members meets and go out in a group , You will learn heaps - Bill

[Granville]

Remember that on a D3100 you have a cropped sensor so do the adjustment before you buy if you're looking at FX lenses.

[arthurking83]

..... you have a cropped sensor so do the adjustment before you buy if you're looking at FX lenses.

:confused:

adjustment? .... which adjustment?

[Granville]

The 35mm becomes 50mm. The 50 becomes about an 85mm. etc

[arthurking83]

You should be careful with these conversions.

An Xmm lens is always an Xmm lens irrespective of the format it's used with.

What you are describing is simple crop factor reduction in the FOV of the lens .. where the 50mm lens on full frame, looks like a 35mm lens on APS-C.

There is no adjustment to be done, and the fact that the lens is made for Fx has no impact on the result either.

All (D)SLR lenses are marked with their actual focal lengths(or focal length ranges) .. and no adjustments should be made when fitting to either an APS-C camera or full frame camera.
Marked focal lengths on lenses are important for many reasons, and as one example of this, depth of field can be one of those considerations to allow for when the focal length of the lens is known.

So for a lens with Xmm focal length, it will provide a specific depth of field for a given focused distance and aperture value .. no matter what format you are using.
The fact that an Xmm lens on an APS-C camera will provide a narrower field of view that it will on a full frame camera is actually irrelevant(to the lenses specifications and properties).

Hopefully your not leading yourself astray with your last comments, in that Fx lenses have some magical power to transform your Dx camera in some way.

So (that is) a 10-300mm lens made for Fx will provide exactly the same technical specifications(that lenses usually provide) on both an Fx camera and a Dx camera .... and conversely a Dx lens of 10-300mm will provide exactly the same technical specs on a Dx camera as it will on an Fx camera ... the only caveat being that with the Dx lens on an Fx format is that you will see the darkened corners of the Dx lens limitations.

[Kym]

The 35mm becomes 50mm. The 50 becomes about an 85mm. etc

No it does NOT!!!!!!! (one of my pet peevs, a lens ALWAYS has the same focal length, marketing tries to say lies about this :) )

I even drew a picture to explain it...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Focal_Length_vs_Crop_Factor

[deef]

Thanks for your reply John. Finances limit me to the 55-200 with VR and I look forward to using it. Now have the camera and learning to use it. Has anyone tried the free course in DSLR with Karl Taylor.

Fully understand the cash flow situation. I have the 55-200 non-VR version and its a good lens. Great for the $$$$. Its in the care of my daughter these days (along with the D50) and she gets very nice pix out of it.

Have fun with your new toys.

[Granville]

No it does NOT!!!!!!! (one of my pet peevs, a lens ALWAYS has the same focal length, marketing tries to say lies about this :) )

I even drew a picture to explain it...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Focal_Length_vs_Crop_Factor

This seems to contradict many other discussions on this topic.

I have a D3100 with a 50mm prime. I take a portrait and frame from the top of the head to the armpits.
If someone is standing next to me with a full frame camera and the same 50mm lens, they will stand closer to the subject to get the same framing. No?

[Dazz1]

This seems to contradict many other discussions on this topic.

I have a D3100 with a 50mm prime. I take a portrait and frame from the top of the head to the armpits.
If someone is standing next to me with a full frame camera and the same 50mm lens, they will stand closer to the subject to get the same framing. No?

Surely the seeming contradiction is why they use they term "effectively" a lot. The 50mm lens behaves effectively like an 85mm on the crop sensor camera.

[tasherlock]

Thanks for all the info which I will take notice of. However, I only intend to use a DX lens which suits the D3100. Thinking seriously about the 55-300 when I am comfortable with what I have.

[Granville]

Surely the seeming contradiction is why they use they term "effectively" a lot. The 50mm lens behaves effectively like an 85mm on the crop sensor camera.


Exactly my point to the OP.

So it doesn't "become" something different, it "behaves" differently. Seems I need to be more careful with my choice of words. Whatever. Point made.

[pixy]

I don`t like to contradict some of the posters above, but a 50mm lens doesn`t work any different on a 35 full frame camera or a cropped sensor camera, there are a lot of differences with how different models of cameras will perform,

DOF will be different,noise maybe less etc,but this is not the lens,if you imagine the 50mm photo from a 35mm sensor shows a head and shoulder the cropped sensor will show less,maybe head only,this is why it is called a cropped

sensor it will show a cropped portion of the 35mm photo.


The correct way to look at this is to say the field of view is different,if you look through the view-finder on both cameras (assuming the view-finder gives you a 100% field of view) you will get exactly what you see.

Jack.

[Granville]

Well that was fun. Hope it helped the OP who is now going to invest money in a DX lens.

[arthurking83]

Well that was fun. Hope it helped the OP who is now going to invest money in a DX lens.

LOL!


Exactly my point to the OP.

So it doesn't "become" something different, it "behaves" differently. Seems I need to be more careful with my choice of words. Whatever. Point made.

I've underlined the adjective used in this quote for a purpose.

It's this impression that the lens behaves differently that makes all the generalised info about how photography does and doesn't work .. that confuses people about what a lens actually does.

The lens is used on the camera to (basically) form an image onto the imaging plane(this could be any medium that is sensitive to light.

How the lens behaves ... has nothing to do with what camera system, or media or light conditions or whatever other variable is possible.

The lens behaves in a strictly defined manner that is set by the manufacturer.
Those behaviours(of the lens) will include topics such as dof and magnification.

That is, if the lens is focused to a point X, and has a focal length of F then the magnification will be M and the DOF it produces will be D.

if you place this lens on any camera that is capable of having the lens mounted to it .. all those variables(X,F,M and D) will not change in any way .. ie... the lens behaves in exactly the same manner.

Then you think .. ahhh!..... but the FOV of the lens is narrower if you mount it to a smaller camera(ie. APS-C as opposed to a full 35mm frame camera).

But what you don't see(and hence realise) is that the lens still forms an image circle similarly on the APS-C camera as it does on the larger Fx camera .. it's just that you can't see this.
(well usually you can, in the form of usually sharper edges and less vignetting on the APS-C .. but this is being pedantic).

What should be noted here is that the smaller APS-C camera behaves differently to the larger Fx format camera.
You have fallen into the illusion(as do most) that the lens behaves differently, rather than the reality that it is the difference in the camera that is what you see.

And (still on the topic of altering behaviour) ... if you change your positioning to maintain the same subject size using the same focal length on the two different formats ... the lens still behaves in exactly the same manner .. but what has changed in this scenario is that YOU have changed YOUR behaviour .. and then once again to account for the different behaviour of the disparate camera formats.


The lens will always act the same irrespective of the format used, unless there is some breakthrough in camera technology(one day) that allows the camera to alter the properties of a lens.

While Kym and myself are acting akin to a couple of self appointed Lens Law Nazi's here .. it's only for good reason!!

There is nothing worse than misinformation, and while our replies seem to border on pathological pedantism .. this is the absolute truth. When other access the site to find information and see these sorts of threads, we want the information to be accurate.

A lens obeys the laws as defined by it's properties only .. and which are defined at the production level and set by the manufacturer of the lens.
A camera doesn't alter these properties in any way.

But your illusion about this point that a 50mm lens on Dx is like a 75mm lens on Fx is considered to be a generally accepted 'generalisation' .. or idea ... on how it will look through the viewfinder.
Technically it is wrong, and the correct way to describe the notion is that it will give you a FOV equivalency.


Maybe it's time for a refresher thread on why a lens is a lens regardless of the format used and doesn't change with different camera formats.

OH! and FWIW .. we've probably scared the OP completely to bits now, and is afraid of purchasing any lenses now ... but if they find the courage to do so .. there's nothing wrong in investing in (the right) Dx lenses :th3:

[Granville]

Oh for crying out loud. Don't treat me like an idiot. I fully understand that this is about the lens/camera combination. My whole message originally to the OP, who is probably running to the hills by now, was that if some one was recommending a certain focal length of lens, the make sure that the cropped sensor was taken into account when taking that advice.

Practically speaking, if he takes advice from someone who owns a full frame camera that a 50mm 1.4 lens is a great low light portrait lens and he can walk around the house when people are over for dinner, taking family pictures without a flash and get a pin sharp image, then don't get peed off when you try to back through a plaster wall to fit everyone in when you find it's behaving like an 85mm.

Get it!!! I don't give a rats about people who need to pick apart semantics. I want to tell a guy who lists himself as a beginner, with 4 posts on the site, to be careful of the above.

Pet peeve of mine is responses to posts that don't actually address the original question, but are designed to show everyone how brilliant they are.

[arthurking83]

Yep! apologies for peeving you off, and it won't happen again.
But this is not about semantics, and had nothing to do with treating you like an idiot.


......

Pet peeve of mine is responses to posts that don't actually address the original question, but are designed to show everyone how brilliant they are.

In this instance you should have contacted one of the moderating team to have your response removed as it really didn't address the OP in any meaningful manner.
Had it been worded correctly it may have provided for some usefulness.
My(and Kym's) reply was directed deliberately to counter the information provided.

So it must be said that if the wording is presented in an idiotic fashion, it comes across as complete and utter BS ... and FWIW, my biggest pet hate is misinformation directed at someone that may not know how to filter it out.

It is our responsibility to provide information that is accurate to those that don't care about it(otherwise if they did, they'd have checked out this misinformation themselves).

There are many sites elsewhere on the internet that will prove to be more helpful for reading generalised, inaccurate and erroneous information ... some of us try to keep AP free of that.


On the other topic in your last reply:


......
Practically speaking, if he takes advice from someone who owns a full frame camera that a 50mm 1.4 lens is a great low light portrait lens and he can walk around the house when people are over for dinner, taking family pictures without a flash and get a pin sharp image, then don't get peed off when you try to back through a plaster wall to fit everyone in when you find it's behaving like an 85mm. .....

Why is it always assumed that the use of a lens providing a particular FOV on the larger format needs to be tempered with caution when used on a smaller format camera!!

To me this is a very restrictive use of photography .. a form of photography that only takes into consideration the FOV!!
If an interest in photography for the individual is to be properly untethered, restricting the discussion of lens usage in terms of FOV only is not being helpful.

[Granville]

Yep! apologies for peeving you off, and it won't happen again.

It just did.

The OP is off to buy his DX lens. I'm off to view topics more interesting.

[ameerat42]

"Sigh!", I said (after thinking it).

"What's wrong?"

"Too little benefit of the doubt; too much self-assurance."

"Does anybody actually believe that someone else is out to hound/badger/attack/denigrate/belittle/something-I-haven't-though-of one? Anybody? - Including the reader?"

(Excerpts from "Reflections and Really Humble Opinions of a Correspondent" by)
Am.

[tasherlock]

I am overwhelmed at the differing advice that this post received. Are more interested in the depth of knowledge displayed. Maybe at a much later time I can enter the discussion!!. Will definitely stick to a DX lens and be assured the camera is happy to accept it.

[arthurking83]

...... Will definitely stick to a DX lens and be assured the camera is happy to accept it.

Don't be confused, just ignore any non lens advice replies. These things happen, and as said in previous posts, my replies were made to balance non accurate information that was posted.

Nothing wrong with Dx lenses at all, and in fact there are many very capable lenses available for the APS-C format.

You will find that the shorter the zoom ratio lenses provide better image quality results overall (ie. 3x instead of 10x zoom ratio .. which equates to 70-200mm lens as opposed to 28-300mm lenses).

There's still nothing wrong with lenses such as the 55-200, 55-300 type lenses if it's within your price range and you can get it now .. better to enjoy it now rather than go without for too much longer.

Most new entrants into photography will generally stick to the Dx(or APS-C) format for at least a few years. Most will upgrade to a better camera body, but still in the Dx format first time around .. and THEN .. look to update/upgrade to a full format body. That's quite a few years away for most .. so looking into getting new lenses that cover the Fx format isn't so important(yet) .. and in fact may never become a factor to consider at all.

[tasherlock]

Thanks Arthur, appreciate your thoughts. At my stage of life a DX lens will do just fine. Keep me completely interested in the hobby.

[arthurking83]

That's what I did for the most part, with a few exceptions here and there.

Don't discount some of the very capable third party lenses for APS-C either.

From what I can tell, the Tamron 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VC is an extremely capable lens. (make sure to understand that this is not the non VC version which sells for approx $100 or so .. the VC version retails for around $350-400).

The Nikon equivalent sells for around $450-500 or so, and if that $100 is important to you .. if the Nikon is better than the Tamron in any way, I doubt you'd see that in terms of $100 worth of difference!

Both of those lenses tho will work on full frame cameras anyhow so are not strictly Dx lenses(not that it matters) .. and both are very good at what they can do.
(I think it was a telephoto lens that you were looking into :confused:)

[tasherlock]

My computer has crashed and briefly use the wife's. Saving for a new one. Been out and about taking photos with the D3100., The manual has so much info it will take time to soak in. Trying different settings to discover which is best. When the computer comes along and I have some photos of a reasonable standard I will post them on this site. Quite impressed with the D3100.