|
best0049
Feb 21, 2011, 9:38 PM
Post #1 of 24
(15135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 4
|
I have had my D90 for about a year now and have the kit lens with it. I will be traveling and climbing over the next few months. I am looking to get a low profile (pan cake lens). I am wondering if anyone has insight on what one to get or reasons not to get one . I am looking to make my camera more compact to carry around. Kit lens is 18-105mm.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 21, 2011, 9:53 PM
Post #2 of 24
(15127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
More information needed. Compact lenses are pretty much all primes (no zoom). What do you photograph mostly? For landscapes or climbing, wide angles are your friends. For general pictures of people, 50mm is pretty much your sweet spot for quality, maximum aperture, and compactness on a small budget - basically because this is where the optics require a minimal amount of glass.
|
|
|
|
|
btmccord
Feb 21, 2011, 11:01 PM
Post #3 of 24
(15083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2010
Posts: 2
|
If you are going to be shooting climbing I would suggest keeping your zoom lens. Prime lenses are great but you really need to be able to move around to compose and this is really hard to do if your hanging on a rope on the side of a cliff.
I have the nikon's 50mm 1.8 lens and its awesome. You can't beat it for the price
|
|
|
|
|
TarheelJD
Feb 21, 2011, 11:27 PM
Post #4 of 24
(15068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2010
Posts: 50
|
If you are stuck on a prime you might want to look at the 35mm f/1.8 dx lens. It will give you what would be more comprable to a 50mm lens field of view on a full frame sensor since you have a D90 with a dx sensor.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Feb 22, 2011, 12:29 AM
Post #5 of 24
(15051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
I've used both the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.4, and while the 50 is a bit nicer glass, the 35 is a more useful focal length. If I were taking this thing traveling, I'd want a telezoom and something really wide, like the Sigma 8-16 or 10-20.
|
|
|
|
|
best0049
Feb 23, 2011, 3:19 PM
Post #7 of 24
(14969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 4
|
Thanks for all the input! I am thinking of going with a 50mm. Might pick this up this week.
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/nikon-nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8d-lens-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8/10077570.aspx?path=c777ea69318ed91d4e2d125877cfad8den02
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Feb 23, 2011, 4:25 PM
Post #8 of 24
(14961 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
best0049 wrote: Thanks for all the input! I am thinking of going with a 50mm. Might pick this up this week. http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/nikon-nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8d-lens-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8/10077570.aspx?path=c777ea69318ed91d4e2d125877cfad8den02 Thanks again
I'd say that the 35mm f/1.8 would be a lot more useful of a focal length if you plan on taking climbing or landscape shots. It is a little bit more expensive than the 50mm, but its still only $200.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Feb 24, 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #9 of 24
(14926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
kennoyce wrote: best0049 wrote: Thanks for all the input! I am thinking of going with a 50mm. Might pick this up this week. http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/nikon-nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8d-lens-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8/10077570.aspx?path=c777ea69318ed91d4e2d125877cfad8den02 Thanks again I'd say that the 35mm f/1.8 would be a lot more useful of a focal length if you plan on taking climbing or landscape shots. It is a little bit more expensive than the 50mm, but its still only $200.
Yeah - the 50 is a great portrait lens, but I wouldn't want to use it with a crop sensor camera for climbing outdoors.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 25, 2011, 8:13 AM
Post #10 of 24
(14897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
best0049 wrote: I have had my D90 for about a year now and have the kit lens with it. I will be traveling and climbing over the next few months. I am looking to get a low profile (pan cake lens). I am wondering if anyone has insight on what one to get or reasons not to get one . I am looking to make my camera more compact to carry around. Kit lens is 18-105mm. Thanks
At the risk of being viscously attacked, ONLY because of your specific request, I will make a simple note.
Honestly, you might be in the wrong brand. There are certain brands which have "pancake primes" as a cornerstone of the system, not an afterthought. I happen to own and enjoy several of such lenses, and being able to stuff 4 lenses in your jeans pockets is pretty cool but I will say no more on this.
Due to issues of fanboyism (not mine, but angry fanboys who have an issue with identifying the seriousness of said problem. Remember, the first step to treating a problem is identifying it), I cannot and will not speak specifically in brand names or models in a thread which I did not start.
If you are willing to sign an NDA send me a PM and we will discuss this.
If an NDA is a little much, do some googling, there are only a few DSLR makers left on the planet, you'll figure it out.
I will say this, the sigma mentioned above is an excellent lens, I had one for 3 years and had almost no complaints about it. It is quite compact for a 10-20mm zoom, but it's not tiny and it increased the size of my travel kit by 2X (yes, you read that correctly, my entire kit is smaller than that lens). I sold it for a wide angle pancake in the middle of the Sigmas range. No regrets, though in a perfect world (where lenses and money both grow on trees, and people don't have to live in fear of mentioning quality camera equipment) I'd have kept both.
For those of you taking my humor too literally, take a deep breath, get off the internet and go fondle your camera and lens. Feel better!
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Mar 30, 2011, 7:18 PM
Post #11 of 24
(14501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
I wish there was a version of this lens with image stabilization for video.
guangzhou wrote: styndall wrote: I've used both the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.4, and while the 50 is a bit nicer glass, the 35 is a more useful focal length. If I were taking this thing traveling, I'd want a telezoom and something really wide, like the Sigma 8-16 or 10-20. I love my sigma 10 to 20. Great recommendation for sure. on the other hand, my 50mm stays in my bag 99% of the time.
(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Mar 30, 2011, 7:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Mar 30, 2011, 8:29 PM
Post #12 of 24
(14488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
I have the 35mm f2.0 non DX and it is a great lens, the crop factor more or less equivalent to the 50 on a full frame.
"I think the 50mm lens is an extremely good discipline lens; it requires you to see in a more refined way, not just tighter."
- William Albert Allard
That said, if i had to choose one prime lens something in the 28-35 equivalent range would be good for people, wider for climbing and mountains...I use a 24 mm manuel focus nikon a lot and wish I had a 20 or 16.
|
|
|
|
|
extreme_actuary
Mar 30, 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #13 of 24
(14480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 112
|
pico23 wrote: At the risk of being viscously attacked, ONLY because of your specific request, I will make a simple note. Honestly, you might be in the wrong brand. There are certain brands which have "pancake primes" as a cornerstone of the system, not an afterthought. I happen to own and enjoy several of such lenses, and being able to stuff 4 lenses in your jeans pockets is pretty cool but I will say no more on this. Due to issues of fanboyism (not mine, but angry fanboys who have an issue with identifying the seriousness of said problem. Remember, the first step to treating a problem is identifying it), I cannot and will not speak specifically in brand names or models in a thread which I did not start. If you are willing to sign an NDA send me a PM and we will discuss this. If an NDA is a little much, do some googling, there are only a few DSLR makers left on the planet, you'll figure it out. I will say this, the sigma mentioned above is an excellent lens, I had one for 3 years and had almost no complaints about it. It is quite compact for a 10-20mm zoom, but it's not tiny and it increased the size of my travel kit by 2X (yes, you read that correctly, my entire kit is smaller than that lens). I sold it for a wide angle pancake in the middle of the Sigmas range. No regrets, though in a perfect world (where lenses and money both grow on trees, and people don't have to live in fear of mentioning quality camera equipment) I'd have kept both. For those of you taking my humor too literally, take a deep breath, get off the internet and go fondle your camera and lens. Feel better!
Pentax. Weatherproof bodies and excellent pancake primes.
Clearly, the best system for climbing photography.
Adventure photography is their focus.
Be careful with ultra-wides. In the right hands, they make wonderful pictures, but they are not always what you want.
They tend to exaggerate close objects and shrink things in the background. The huge mountains you are about to climb will look like small hills compared to the massive shrub in the foreground.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 31, 2011, 9:18 PM
Post #14 of 24
(14443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
guangzhou wrote: styndall wrote: I've used both the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.4, and while the 50 is a bit nicer glass, the 35 is a more useful focal length. If I were taking this thing traveling, I'd want a telezoom and something really wide, like the Sigma 8-16 or 10-20. I love my sigma 10 to 20. Great recommendation for sure. [image]http://www.sigmaphoto.com/client/images/products/202_10-20mm_f35_EX_DC_HSM.png[/image] on the other hand, my 50mm stays in my bag 99% of the time.
I just bought the Sigma 8-16. I'm really psyched to get it next Tuesday. I'm in Michigan, and I think I'm going to drag it out to some of the union protests at the capitol first thing.
(This post was edited by styndall on Mar 31, 2011, 9:19 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 1, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #15 of 24
(14410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Uggh, I can't resist, but my Sigma 10-20mm was stabilized. I could take sharp shots down to 1/4th second. And this was using older in camera SR with one LESS axis of rotation than the current models have (since 2009). The extra axis is specifically for wide angles.
In camera stabilization was poo-pooed for a while (canon even took out a pathetic full page ad bashing in camera SR in pop photo a few years ago that was completely BS because it realized in camera SR was superior) but all the test show that except for extreme telephoto it's either as good or superior. The problem with extreme tele (like 400mm +, and more specifically a problem at 500-600mm+) is that the optical VF isn't stabilized.
However, most people don't shoot 400-600mm lenses regularly, so you then have to balance, "do I want what I need, or should I get what I might need under certain rare circumstances"
For me, having the ability to put a 40 year old lens on my camera and have it stabilized, or put a brand new 10-20mm UWA on the camera and have it stabilized for both handheld shooting and video is a huge benefit. I'd also venture to say most people, even working pros, don't regularly shoot 400mm + lenses. Sure field sports, birders, and wildlife shooters will, but more often other genres of shooters will not.
It all boils down to making decisions that fit what you will realistically need.
It wouldn't be a pico23 post without some tangent.
Take FCP vs. Sony Vegas, Vegas is definitely superior, but FCP is the "industry standard" and a lot of people in the industry question this. Personally having trialed FCP and every other video editor, and then buying Vegas, I feel like Vegas is light years superior. Vegas is faster, renders better, has more coding options, and supports more import formats without having to convert. Same thing with camera brands, some are industry standards, others are just what YOU need.
George Bush said, "I am the decider", don't be a drone, be a great decider yourself!
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: I wish there was a version of this lens with image stabilization for video. guangzhou wrote: styndall wrote: I've used both the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.4, and while the 50 is a bit nicer glass, the 35 is a more useful focal length. If I were taking this thing traveling, I'd want a telezoom and something really wide, like the Sigma 8-16 or 10-20. I love my sigma 10 to 20. Great recommendation for sure. on the other hand, my 50mm stays in my bag 99% of the time. |
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 1, 2011, 8:23 PM
Post #16 of 24
(14405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
extreme_actuary wrote: Pentax. Weatherproof bodies and excellent pancake primes. Clearly, the best system for climbing photography. Adventure photography is their focus.
I think travel and adventure is their focus. With increased carry-on restrictions a smaller system has some huge advantages. It's also advantageous in the backcountry.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 1, 2011, 8:57 PM
Post #17 of 24
(14395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Which version of the 10-20mm was stabilized? Is that a Canon or Nikon mount?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 1, 2011, 9:24 PM
Post #18 of 24
(14387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Which version of the 10-20mm was stabilized? Is that a Canon or Nikon mount?
Neither, stabilizing wide angle zooms or primes in lens is very difficult. It's why Nikon and Canon have so few of such lenses. It's the Pentax/Sony/Olympus mount! You know, all the cameras that have built in stabilization!
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 2, 2011, 12:15 PM
Post #19 of 24
(14342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
pico23 wrote: JasonsDrivingForce wrote: Which version of the 10-20mm was stabilized? Is that a Canon or Nikon mount? Neither, stabilizing wide angle zooms or primes in lens is very difficult. It's why Nikon and Canon have so few of such lenses. It's the Pentax/Sony/Olympus mount! You know, all the cameras that have built in stabilization!
Actually I did some research on this and there were plans to produce OS(in lens optical stabilization) versions of the 10-20mm. However, I couldn't find any evidence that they were ever produced.
http://news.cnet.com/...0_3-10185931-39.html
In camera stabilization in DSLRs is useless for video because of overheating issues. The new Sony cameras are notorious for this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 2, 2011, 1:13 PM
Post #20 of 24
(14335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
highly unlikely it would have been stabilized, but not impossible, I am sure. Like I said, make a very short list of all the wide angle primes and zooms with in lens IS.
As far as sensor overheating, don't think SR has anything to do with it. Nikon and Canon sensors overheat too. There is nothing mechanical on Pentax/Samsung SR. Its a free floating magnet, maybe sony/olympus should try it. As far as video, look up Uncle Jack, Being Bobby, the Pentax I-10 commercial with Pentax DSLRs; and chris O'connells ski shoot in New Zealand with the Samsung NX10 (and my favorite compact, the TL500). I can assure you in camera SR works just fine, perhaps you spent too much time reading that canon full page ad in PopPhoto! 
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 2, 2011, 1:18 PM
Post #21 of 24
(14332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
btw, I'm sure you are aware, but most professional Dslr video is shot on a tripod with SR off. You can see the setups at the end of the being bobby video, and there was a behind the scenes shoot and video for the I-10 commercial, which was a hell of a setup, no handheld shots in that.
Secondly, almost all professional video is shot in short takes. I admit I don't know a lot about video shooting, but I do have 2 friends with film degrees, who shoot professionally (MTV, National Geo, MLB you know stuff you'll see on TV), so I occassionally pick their brains.
Finally, the Nikon D5000 has no in camera SR, and it only gets 5 minutes per cut. I did a little research and it is true the Sony A55/A33 had MORE of an issue with SR on, like 9 minutes of straight video, but they also overheated with the SR turned off. In both cases, a lot of the issue was ambient air temperature. I can vouch that ambient air does have an impact. My K-7 (Samsung CMOS) had issues in warm weather with extended live view and video recording, the new K-5 with the same Sony sensor found in Nikon and Sony cameras also overheats. Though I also shoot in short takes, I had to make sure I turned off the Live View between takes or I'd overheat the sensor. This had nothing (or very little) to do with the SR mechanism.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Apr 2, 2011, 3:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 3, 2011, 1:24 AM
Post #22 of 24
(14290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
I agree with you that in lens stabilization is rare. However, it can be quite useful. Video does not have to be shot professionally to be useful. And not all video can be shot in controlled situations. For those times IS can be essential.
|
|
|
|
|
xmesox
Apr 6, 2011, 7:29 AM
Post #23 of 24
(14195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326
|
As stated above, you'd need to make a decision of what's more important to you, compact or flexibility. I hardly see 50mm or even around the 30mm mark as a landscape lens - those fixed primes are definitely more portrait lenses.
I've got the Sigma 10-20mm and it's great - but Sigma have recently released the 8-16mm, if width is what you're looking for it's an amazing looking lens from what I've seen of it, those extra 2mm are really visible and it's extremely sharp. The pricing is also not much more than the 10-20mm.
That's assuming you want a really wide lens. They're not very flat though and are near the same as an 18-55mm.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 7, 2011, 1:38 AM
Post #24 of 24
(14156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
It all depends on how you shoot, some people love UWAs for landscapes, and this is fine depending on where you live. 8mm is insanely wide, I'd have very little use for it myself. If I lived near the Wind Rivers or the Indian Peaks, I'd probably be able to use a wider lens more often (like in the 12-14mm range). But I use a 70, 90, 200 and 300mm lens as often in landscapes as I do a UWA. The 10mm FL of the 10-20mm was rarely used for me, and I often cropped off the corners of it anyway, giving me more like 12mm FOV. it's why I sold it for a 15mm pancake prime (23-24mm effective).
My bread and butter focal length is around 30mm (effective). I use this FL on 35mm, 645 (55mm lens), and digital APS-C (21mm lens) formats. I see an image in this FL long before I pull the camera out. Which means I even if I don't have as much of an eye for the other FLs in my bag, I know it's too wide or narrow for the shot, which means I can put on a wider or narrower lens before wasting time .
As far as fixed primes. I have a 15mm, 21mm, 28mm, 35mm Tilt and Shift, 43mm, 55mm , 90mm, and 300mm. The only two I'd recommend for portraits are the 55mm and 90mm. The 43mm makes for an excellent landscape lens, especially if the scenery is distant. It or a 35mm also make great panoramic lenses. Low distortion, generous FOV (for stitching multiframes), and great resolution per frame.
For me, portability (compactness) equals flexibility. I can stuff an entire kit (minus flash heads) into a hardigg 1300/1400 size case. 15mm, 21mm, 43mm and 90mm or 55-300mm zoom. That is effectively 23-135mm or 23-450mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
