Learning photography

[fUbAr]

Ok, so i understand what the aperture/shutter speed/ISO etc is and how the effect the photo... but i would like to know a little more before buying the equipment so I don't spend money on the wrong thing. What i would like, is maybe a website that can explain things to me.

At the moment im struggling with the lenses... all the numbers on them (2.8-5.6, 50-300 etc etc) and how the numbers effect the lense and ultimately the picture. why do they state 2 aperture figures?

any help/advice/websites would be appreciated.

 

[JJ!]

This is my reply... im a novice so its probably wrong!!

The 55-200 is how far you can zoom. You can find charts that tell you how much. 55 is around 3x zoom. 200 is around 11.5 zoom ( i think)

The 2.8-5.6 is the aperture.
Say on a 55-200 2.8-5.6 lens
The 2.8 is the lowest aperture you can set for the lens at 55mmm and 5.6 is the lowest aperture at 200mm.

More expensve lenses have lower range, 2.8-3.6 etc. Super expensive lenses can have a fixed aperture all the way through the zoom.

 

[fUbAr]

ok, that helps a little. Thanks.

if the lense said say 100-300mm then that would be no good for close objects or landscapes?

and am i right in thinking that the larger the aperture of the lense, it can cope with faster shutter speeds? so a lense with an aperture of say 5.6 would be no good for shooting at 1/2000?

 

[theduck]

the larger the aperture the faster the shutter speed required to attain a fixed exposure. see this tutorial http://stumac1985.deviantart.com/art/Apertures-52414887

100-300mm is whats known as telephoto and so is for things further away. the larger the numbers the further away they 'zoom'. the smaller the number the wider they can see.

For close ups, depending how close you want, a macro lens may be what you want as these can focus closer.

the fastest shutter speed is dependant on the camera body and has nothing to do with the lens

 

[fUbAr]

people talk about "fast lenses" though?

 

[JJ!]

ok, that helps a little. Thanks.

if the lense said say 100-300mm then that would be no good for close objects or landscapes?

and am i right in thinking that the larger the aperture of the lense, it can cope with faster shutter speeds? so a lense with an aperture of say 5.6 would be no good for shooting at 1/2000?

100-300 would be no good for close objects... If your looking at asn SLR you best bet is to get something like an 18-55 or 18-70 plus a 55-200 or 70-300.

You can get all in one 18-200, but these get mixed reviews and you get less glass to play with.

I have an 18-55 and 55-200VR which covers all i need.

 

[theduck]

people talk about "fast lenses" though?

a fast lens is one with a large maxmium aperture. they normally are refering to lenses with a max aperture above f/2. Its called a fast lens because it lets in so much light in quickly, normally allowing for a fast exposure.

 

[fUbAr]

aaah, many thanks.

do all lenses have the facility to switch between auto/manual focus? I am thinking of buying the Canon 350d

 

[JJ!]

Go to camera shops and handle all the models (350d & D40) and see which one you prefer. The standard kist lens with the 350d is pretty average/poor so maybe just buy the body and get a better starter lens.

 

[theduck]

yuck... personally hate the 350d, feels cheap. All auto focus lenses should be able to switch to manual focus.

Personally I dont think you can do better than this deal at the moment

http://www.digitaldepot.co.uk/Digit...mpus_E-500_SE_17.5-45mm_Kit/product_info.html

Its discontinued now but is a brilliant camera. These SE kits dont come with rechargeable batteries but they also sell a cheap kit with battery and charger. Also if you call them and speak to Stuart Boston and tell him Ken Thomas refered you he will look after you very well!

EDIT: Canon kit lenses are terrible! Nikon are better but still not great. Olympus kit lenses are as good as what you will buy aftermarket for the entry level nikons and canons

EDIT2: digitaldepot sell the canons and nikons to, and he'll be able to do you a good price on those aswell

 

[Andi-B]

aaah, many thanks.

do all lenses have the facility to switch between auto/manual focus? I am thinking of buying the Canon 350d

Not all have auto focus, I have a Sigma 70mm to 300mm Macro lens with manual focus only and find it easier to use without it having auto.. Although afaik, most auto lenses are switchable between auto and manual. Could be wrong though, can't confirm that on Cannon and the likes of.

 

[john1.2pearl]

also i dont think the d40/d40x has an internal focusing motor on the body, so it will only be nikon autofocus lenses if u want autofocus iirc

 

[Andi-B]

^^ They don't .. Only on the lenses :approve:

 

[Laura]

the D40 range at all doesn't include the motor for auto-focussing some of their Nikon lenses, for example the cheap 50mm prime. See here for a photo of the difference - the D40x lacks the motor drive spindle.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
"No lens motor in body means non-AF-S/AF-I lenses are manual focus only"

Even the just-announced D60 is the same.

So, if you want auto-focus with the full range of Nikon lenses, I'd avoid those base models.

something someone said to me when deciding between the nikon and the canon, ultimately i spent a bit more n got the canon

 

[fUbAr]

Go to camera shops and handle all the models (350d & D40) and see which one you prefer. The standard kist lens with the 350d is pretty average/poor so maybe just buy the body and get a better starter lens.

i have used both regularly (at work) and prefer the Canon body.

So I need to look for an AF lense if i want autofocus... what do the I and S mean after AF?

i feel dumb asking all these basic questions, is there anywhere i can read about lenses and what they mean?

 

[theduck]

its to do with the lens mount, dont worry about it, esepcially if you are buying canon

 

[ukaskew]

I've had 4 PMs about this lately and still haven't found a good site to explain different lens and how they work etc.

The bigger numbers usually stated in mm is the focal length of the lens. Forget about 3x zoom or whatever you see on compact cameras, that is completely irrelevant now. It can be slightly confusing as 'normal' DSLRs will automatically record roughly 1.5 times more than the actual stated mm on a lens (i.e. a 10mm lens would actually be 15mm), but to be honest that's not worth worrying about.

10mm on a DSLR would be very very wide, wide enough to accidently get your feet in the photo, or to see more than you would see within the main vision of your own eyes...

10mm

50mm is there or thereabouts the focal length equivalent to what we see with our own eyes

50mm

100mm onwards is getting into telephoto territory, most go up to around 300mm before you start reaching silly money.

300mm

There are two main types of lens when it comes to DSLRs, prime and zoom. A prime lens will be locked at a certain focal length, e.g. 50mm, a zoom lens will cover a wider range, e.g. 55-200mm, and obviously you can use every mm right from the 55mm through to 200mm. To the average person a prime lens would seem a bit pointless, but the benefit is that they are usually of much higher quality and can be much 'faster' (i.e. f2.8).

Now the bit that confuses most, the 'f4.5-5.6' bit. The f number is the aperture value that a lens is capable of, essentially the lower the number the better the lens is. A lens that has a value of f1.4, f1.8 or f2.8 is known as a fast lens, a lens with values creeping up around f5.6 would be a slow lens. Many zoom lens have a range (i.e. f4-5.6) as they not capable of maintaining a fast speed throughout the whole zoom range. So a 70-300mm f4-5.6 would be f4 at 70mm, but gradually increase to f5.6 at 300mm. However an 80-200 f2.8 would be able to work at f2.8 from 80mm all the way through to 200mm.

Yes you are right to say you can shoot at faster speeds with a lower f number, 1/2000 at f5.6 may give you a very dark image in many conditions, but 1/2000 at f2.8 may be perfectly useable. Lenses get more expensive the faster they are because to maintain a fast speed requires lots of glass. For example my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 weighs over 1.5kg, where as a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 weighs about 500g, even though the Sigma actually zooms 100mm further than the Nikon lens.

So a benefit of a fast lens is obvious, you can use it in much darker conditions and still get useable shutter speeds. The other benefit is that a low f number (fast lens) gives you nice blurry backgrounds if needed.

300mm @ f4

 

[Clart]

buy the book "understanding exposure" its a very good read

 

[dick]

This is my reply... im a novice so its probably wrong!!

The 55-200 is how far you can zoom. You can find charts that tell you how much. 55 is around 3x zoom. 200 is around 11.5 zoom ( i think)

The 2.8-5.6 is the aperture.
Say on a 55-200 2.8-5.6 lens
The 2.8 is the lowest aperture you can set for the lens at 55mmm and 5.6 is the lowest aperture at 200mm.

More expensve lenses have lower range, 2.8-3.6 etc. Super expensive lenses can have a fixed aperture all the way through the zoom.

pretty much. but...

the zoom factor relates how much the zoom ranges from smallest focal length to longest.

ie. a 70-200 has less than a 3x multiplication.
but an 18-200 does indeed have about 11.5x

on p&s the mltiplications normally refers to 35mm if your intrested though
ie. a 3x zoom would be 105mm. (35*3 =105)
get me?

and revels.
the aperture, lets half as much light in for each sqrt2 factor.

ie.

f/2.8 lets twice as much light in as f4. which in turn lets twice as much in as f/5.6

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32.
are whole f stops. but most cameras split these down into 1/3 or 1/2 f-stops.

this means getting an f2.8 max aperture over an f4 means that wide open (max aperture) you will be getting twice as much light to the sensor. which means you can use a shutter speed that is twice as quick (or half the speed, which ever way you look at it. ie. 1/25 on the f2.8 over the 1/50th exposure on the f4.)

ISO
iso is essentially how much the camera has to amplify the light signal by...

doubling the ISO halves the shutter speed.

ie.

for one scene you are looking at. the camera decides that to expose the shot correctly it needs

F4
iso 200
1/500th sec

to get the same shutter speed at f5.6, you would have to go to iso 400.

or to use iso 100 and get the better image quality lower iso brings
you would have to half the shutter speed (1/250th sec) or go to f2.8

edit... this was a waste of time as ukaskew did a good message...
also.... the meercat, with the background blur, is called bokeh,

nice pic tho dude.

 

[fUbAr]

I've had 4 PMs about this lately and still haven't found a good site to explain different lens and how they work etc.

The bigger numbers usually stated in mm is the focal length of the lens. Forget about 3x zoom or whatever you see on compact cameras, that is completely irrelevant now. It can be slightly confusing as 'normal' DSLRs will automatically record roughly 1.5 times more than the actual stated mm on a lens (i.e. a 10mm lens would actually be 15mm), but to be honest that's not worth worrying about.

10mm on a DSLR would be very very wide, wide enough to accidently get your feet in the photo, or to see more than you would see within the main vision of your own eyes...

10mm

50mm is there or thereabouts the focal length equivalent to what we see with our own eyes

50mm

100mm onwards is getting into telephoto territory, most go up to around 300mm before you start reaching silly money.

300mm

There are two main types of lens when it comes to DSLRs, prime and zoom. A prime lens will be locked at a certain focal length, e.g. 50mm, a zoom lens will cover a wider range, e.g. 55-200mm, and obviously you can use every mm right from the 55mm through to 200mm. To the average person a prime lens would seem a bit pointless, but the benefit is that they are usually of much higher quality and can be much 'faster' (i.e. f2.8).

Now the bit that confuses most, the 'f4.5-5.6' bit. The f number is the aperture value that a lens is capable of, essentially the lower the number the better the lens is. A lens that has a value of f1.4, f1.8 or f2.8 is known as a fast lens, a lens with values creeping up around f5.6 would be a slow lens. Many zoom lens have a range (i.e. f4-5.6) as they not capable of maintaining a fast speed throughout the whole zoom range. So a 70-300mm f4-5.6 would be f4 at 70mm, but gradually increase to f5.6 at 300mm. However an 80-200 f2.8 would be able to work at f2.8 from 80mm all the way through to 200mm.

Yes you are right to say you can shoot at faster speeds with a lower f number, 1/2000 at f5.6 may give you a very dark image in many conditions, but 1/2000 at f2.8 may be perfectly useable. Lenses get more expensive the faster they are because to maintain a fast speed requires lots of glass. For example my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 weighs over 1.5kg, where as a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 weighs about 500g, even though the Sigma actually zooms 100mm further than the Nikon lens.

So a benefit of a fast lens is obvious, you can use it in much darker conditions and still get useable shutter speeds. The other benefit is that a low f number (fast lens) gives you nice blurry backgrounds if needed.

300mm @ f4

excellent, thats made things much clearer, it really has! thanks mate

thank you to dick too, its useful to have things explained twice

 

[ukaskew]

Here's a good idea of how the aperture of a lens affects its physical size...

Second lens in from the right is the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6, the beast next to it is the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8. The Sigma covers a range of 230mm in total and goes all the way up to 300mm, the Nikon only covers 120mm in total and goes up to 200mm, yet the Nikon is 3 times heavier and twice the size.

Also worth pointing out that the Nikon is actual size, i.e. it doesn't extend as you zoom in. The Sigma has an extending barrel, as you zoom in it extends and gets narrower. To maintain the f2.8 the Nikon lens has to be physically big in size all the way to the end as it needs more glass. In simple terms...more glass = more expensive.

 

[fUbAr]

what are the little ones for?

 

[john1.2pearl]

one of them is a 50mm prime lens the other is a teleconverter which lengnthens the focal length of the lens it is fitted before

 

[wozzaa]

Go to camera shops and handle all the models (350d & D40) and see which one you prefer. The standard kist lens with the 350d is pretty average/poor so maybe just buy the body and get a better starter lens.

i have used both regularly (at work) and prefer the Canon body.

So I need to look for an AF lense if i want autofocus... what do the I and S mean after AF?

i feel dumb asking all these basic questions, is there anywhere i can read about lenses and what they mean?

Not sure if this has been answered here didnt see it. On some of them the IS means image stabilization so less chance of a blurry shot basically.

 

[ukaskew]

The 50mm (little one on the left in my pic) is a must-buy in my opinion. They are £80-90 (Canon and Nikon both do them) and you will be amazed at the quality. It's sharper than almost anything you can buy up to 3 or 4 times the price, and it can be used in so many situations...macro, portrait, landscape, cars etc.

Take a look at some samples, it's a steal at less than £100...

Canon 50mm 1.8: http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonef50mm/pool/
Nikon 50mm 1.8: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor50mm18/pool/

There is no reason why you couldn't easily cope with a 50mm prime and a 70-300 f4-5.6, that would come to about £180 in total. With that and the kit lens that comes with a DSLR you would cover pretty much any focal length you could ever need.

 

[john1.2pearl]

have a looksie here gives u a quick idea of the abbreviations and such
http://www.peakoverload.com/blog/photography/a-guide-to-lens-markings.html

 

[fUbAr]

The 50mm (little one on the left in my pic) is a must-buy in my opinion. They are £80-90 (Canon and Nikon both do them) and you will be amazed at the quality. It's sharper than almost anything you can buy up to 3 or 4 times the price, and it can be used in so many situations...macro, portrait, landscape, cars etc.

Take a look at some samples, it's a steal at less than £100...

Canon 50mm 1.8: http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonef50mm/pool/
Nikon 50mm 1.8: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor50mm18/pool/

There is no reason why you couldn't easily cope with a 50mm prime and a 70-300 f4-5.6, that would come to about £180 in total. With that and the kit lens that comes with a DSLR you would cover pretty much any focal length you could ever need.

they're great, superb quality. Seems strange having a fixed lense on an expensive camera... but i guess thats just my ignorance showing through.
Will have a look and see whats available.
Where do you buy your equipment from?

 

[john1.2pearl]

fixed or prime lenses often offer greater sharpness and are often faster than the equivelent focal length zoom lens, the concept of having a fixed lens my seem weird at first but as you progress you will find a prime lense is often a necessity

 

[ukaskew]

they're great, superb quality. Seems strange having a fixed lense on an expensive camera... but i guess thats just my ignorance showing through.
Will have a look and see whats available.
Where do you buy your equipment from?

Most people with expensive cameras use a fixed lens The 50mm type lens actually used to be the standard bundled lens with high-end cameras, sadly the marketing teams have changed this over to the 18-55mm kit lens these days, but really the 50mm would show off a DSLR far better than a kit lens for new buyers.

The quality of zoom lenses is catching up fast but you can't beat a good prime lens for quality/reliability. They also force you to be more creative, as obviously you have to think about framing more as you can't zoom in and out (unless you walk back or forward)

Equipment comes from all over the place, I now love MPB for second-hand stuff (which most of mine is) but Ebay is usually the place of choice for new stuff.

 

[fUbAr]

cheers for all your help

1 last question, a 2x convertor... does that do what it says on the box, double the length so a 300 becomes a 600mm? if so what happens to the aperature?

 

[ukaskew]

cheers for all your help

1 last question, a 2x convertor... does that do what it says on the box, double the length so a 300 becomes a 600mm? if so what happens to the aperature?

Yes it doubles the focal length.

A 2x usually reduces the speed of the lens by two stops (i.e. f2.8 to f5.6), you can also get 1.4x (which I have) which reduces it by one stop (i.e. f2.8 to f4) and 1.7x which reduces it by 1.5 stops. So a 80-200mm f2.8 would become a 160-400mm f5.6 with a 2x, or a 112mm-280mm f4 with a 1.4x.

They only really work on fast lens though, many cameras won't auto-focus with a lens slower than f5.6 (not enough light coming through) although they are still useable manually. You wouldn't want a 2x on a f5.6 lens, but it would be fine on an f2.8 lens.

 

[JJ!]

the D40 range at all doesn't include the motor for auto-focussing some of their Nikon lenses, for example the cheap 50mm prime. See here for a photo of the difference - the D40x lacks the motor drive spindle.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
"No lens motor in body means non-AF-S/AF-I lenses are manual focus only"

Even the just-announced D60 is the same.

So, if you want auto-focus with the full range of Nikon lenses, I'd avoid those base models.

something someone said to me when deciding between the nikon and the canon, ultimately i spent a bit more n got the canon

The lens with the motors in are actually not that expensive, Nikon, Sigma and now Tamron all do them, the 18-55, 55-200VR, 18-70, 18-135, 70-300VR, the new 16-85VR, 18-55VR, 24-120VR etc etc.

You are far from limted on lenses on the D40, its justa myth started by Canon!

 

[Nigel]

Ukaskew, great posts as always.

Is your 80-200 f2.8 the AFD version?

Would you go for the 2x or 1.4x convertor. I'm unsure if I need the extra reach of 2x. Have you ever been at track and wished you could zoom in further?

With regards to ebay there are some bargains on there for the tc-20e, but are they all genuine nikon?

 

[ukaskew]

Ukaskew, great posts as always.

Is your 80-200 f2.8 the AFD version?

Would you go for the 2x or 1.4x convertor. I'm unsure if I need the extra reach of 2x. Have you ever been at track and wished you could zoom in further?

With regards to ebay there are some bargains on there for the tc-20e, but are they all genuine nikon?

Mine is the AF-S version, hardly ever seems to come up for sale now, and when it does it goes for silly money.

I would go with the 1.4x personally, best balance of quality and extra reach and still keeps the autofocus pretty fast. You always want extra reach when shooting motorsport, it doesn't really mean you need it though. Check out the last post in the Motorsport guide, a link to an 18 year old photographer with a D50 and 80-200, even at Silverstone he gets stunning pictures, yet most people would say you need 400mm at Silverstone.

As for Ebay, the 2x is actually officially cheaper than the 1.4 and 1.7, but not by much. However there are different versions, the latest model is Nikon TC-20E II (and TC-14EII, TC-17EII), so make sure that is the actual one you are looking at. If it's less than £200 I would be worried, personally.

 

[Nigel]

^^Cheers,

One last question. Would the Tc-14e auto focus with AFD lenses? The nikon site only list AFS and AFI as auto focusing.

 

[Ali]

Fcuk me you guys are good!! Liking the look of that 50mm lens...Might be worth a punt!

 

[steven.m]

This thread has been a good read, learnt something I'd say.

Thanks guys!

 

[Revels]

This is really helpful.

Stuck this too!

 

[fUbAr]

so it wasn't just me who wanted a little confusion on lenses clearing up then?

everyone wins!

 

[McBunny]

imho the thread needs clearing up so the info is in one place not all the way through it