Lens Advice for Nikon D5100

1. 18-55mm is useful for most causal subjects and is among the lightest lenses around; I'd definitely get it, even if I knew ahead of time I wanted something more upscale. See how focal length affects field of view for yourself: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/
   
2. f/1.8 does let you shoot in low light. 35mm on DX is in the normal range, which makes it useful for many subjects.
   
3. The Sony NEX-6 is a mirrorless camera. It can switch lenses, but does not have an optical viewfinder like SLRs such as the D5100 (it has an electronic viewfinder). It will be able to substitute for a D5100 adequately, since you would ideally use lenses appropriate for the subject either way.
   
4. Micro/macro lenses are optimized for close focusing and high magnifications. You can fill the frame with a relatively small subject. Point and shoot have lenses that generally focus closer than most SLR lenses so they can magnify subjects rather well. That said, working distance is still an issue.
   
5. Flash is up to you. It is very rewarding if you take the effort to learn to use it. External flashes generally cost $100+. Built-in popup flashes only points straight forward and is really only useful doing fill flash in bright daylight (ironically enough). I use a mirror to bounce it to the ceiling, which makes it useful at short range.

I'm not an expert in cameras so can't really go into details or explain much like others. But I think your situation was kinda similar to me few months ago when I was totally overwhelmed by the amount of info I tried to research on (for my D5000, the predecessor of yours). So I ended up asking for suggestion from one of my best friend.

 

I didn't ask for any explanations (totally trusted him lol), just the exact lens that he thought would be the best. At the end, I got myself a Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G.

 

So far, I've been satisfied with my decision. It is quite an all-rounder lens though being listed as "special purpose (for macro)" on Nikon website. Despite of being a macro lens, it performs well enough in portrait and even landscape photos. And of course, it does its job in macro field beautifully. For a 60cm DD, macro lens is not a compulsory but sometimes you might want a little more details (on the face or the clothes textures). The only downside I have found so far is that because of the 2.8G, it is not as bright as my 35/1.8G so the performance in weak light condition might not be up to expected. However, I think 2.8 is not too bad for indoor shots as it is indeed much brighter than my default zoom lens

 

Speaking of price, it is the most reasonable macro Nikon lens out there, coming with lens pouch, front lens cap, rear lens cap, and bayonet hood. It is currently listed on eBay for about $280 so a local deal might get close enough to your budget.

 

The only thing is that I was considering 75% doll photos and 25% everything else when purchasing this lens so it might not perfectly fit your goals.

 

Lastly, please excuse any comparisons since this is totally my own experience and I didn't have the opportunity to try anything more advanced ><

Thanks for the additional replies! This is great information, even if I don't understand it all yet . But I'm getting there.

 

That 40mm macro lens sounds useful. That was just the kind of rundown on the uses, pros, and gotchas that I find particularly helpful, so thanks.

 

I'm going to head out in the morning to try some of this equipment out in person, with the intention of making a basic purchase. With follow-up lenses to come thereafter I'm sure...

 

One more question. My point-n-shoot (Canon A530) advertises "4x optical zoom". So, according to Kumi, the 18-55mm kit lens is equivalent to a 3x magnification power between the default setting and furthest zoomed-in? Is that the right comparison to be making?

One more question. My point-n-shoot (Canon A530) advertises "4x optical zoom". So, according to Kumi, the 18-55mm kit lens is equivalent to a 3x magnification power between the default setting and furthest zoomed-in? Is that the right comparison to be making?

You can always do the math to find X by dividing the bigger number for the smaller one. In the 18-55mm case, it will be 55/18=3.05X zoom. I believe there are more factors towards the power of zoom on a DSLR since a 100-300mm and 18-55mm both have 3X zoom but the performances are totally different ><

That 40mm macro lens sounds useful. That was just the kind of rundown on the uses, pros, and gotchas that I find particularly helpful, so thanks.

 

You can also get 35/1.8 - very good all-round standard lens, and saved 80$ spend on the mentioned macro extension tubes set (the AF version). This may be even better deal in terms of lens speed and versatility

Because the macro capability You will probably use only from time to time, but 1.8 is around two times faster than 2.8, means You're getting twice the light.

Or for 80$ get some used manual macro lens - dolls usually don't run away

 

One more question. My point-n-shoot (Canon A530) advertises "4x optical zoom". So, according to Kumi, the 18-55mm kit lens is equivalent to a 3x magnification power between the default setting and furthest zoomed-in? Is that the right comparison to be making?

 

Almost there

But it's not really "default setting", it's just the shortest and longest focal length = widest and narrowest field of view, respectively.

To have something in common between different sensor sizes, we use the 35mm/full frame equivalent.

Your Canon has 4x zoom and 35-140mm eq. on a film camera.

The 18-55 zoom with 1.5x crop factor (Nikon DX, Sony NEX etc) has 3x zoom range but ~27-82.5mm eq. (similar FOV like many 28-80 mm zooms for film cameras).

This means, this 18-55 at 18mm has wider view than Your Canon, but Canon has almost twice the range on the "long" end (140 vs 80).

I believe there are more factors towards the power of zoom on a DSLR since a 100-300mm and 18-55mm both have 3X zoom but the performances are totally different ><

Very true. More important than the zoom ratio is the range the lens actually covers, as stated above.

Zoom ratios for interchangeable lenses are usually less than compact cameras (for a variety of technical reasons), so if you just graded on how much "X" it was, the interchangeable camera system would generally lose.

 

The highest SLR lens I've seen is 18-270mm, which is "only" 15x and the quality considered just so-so. Compacts can go 30x or higher nowadays.

 

Also, I have not seen any compact camera cover a field of view wider than 24mm equivalent (~84 degrees). SLRs can switch lenses, and can use ultrawide lenses going to ~114 degrees or fisheyes going to 180 degrees. It is much more flexible.

 

Besides, I guarantee that if you use a compact camera with an absurdly large zoom ratio (over 10x), the telephoto end will be less usable than implied. The tiny sensor means the ISO can't go too high without huge noise, which just makes the normal issues of camera shake and subject motion even worse.

SLRs can switch lenses, and can use ultrawide lenses going to ~114 degrees or fisheyes going to 180 degrees. It is much more flexible.

 

CSC (Compact System Cameras) like NEX can do it too, for example there's Sony SEL 10-18 lens with 109° — 76° angle. Or 8mm Samyang fisheye.

But such ultrawide lenses (SLR or CSC, no matter) aren't particularly cheap

Doh, right, I meant system cameras, yes. Just habit to refer to all of them as SLRs sometimes.

The border is becoming grey already

 

I was checking lately Sony "DSLR" camera. I thought so. Sony Alpha mount, same DX sensor, mirror inside... but why the VF is dark?

Turns out, the mirror is only for AF, it's a fixed semi-transparent one, but VF is electronic... quite good, have to say. But from outside Sony SLT looks and handles like a DSLR. Apparently the photo quality is also very good.

There's even the full-frame version.

So, results! I went investigating today at the Bic Camera to see what they had in stock. Thanks to you all, I understood more of what I was looking at than I did the last time I was there (right before I made this thread). The store had the NEX-6 as well as the Nikon and many many other possible camera choices out on display for testing, as well as a couple lenses per camera to play with.

 

I looked for the 18-70mm lens that Kumi suggested as being useful for polarizing filters, but that one does not seem to be available new any more, so I couldn't get that exact model today. One of the D5100 lenses that was set out for customer testing was the 55-300mm that PrettyCranium suggested for closeups of wildlife, and I can see why. That was pretty neat seeing what it was possible to get pictures of across the store and still be in focus. I was originally going to hold off until later on that one to keep the total price down, but seeing it in person as well as the deal the store had on it changed my mind.

 

So, after taking everyone's advice into account as well as what was available at the store, this is what I ended up getting to start with. I thought this was a great deal for what equated to $890 USD tax-in:

 

*Nikon D5100 camera

*AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR basic zoom lens

*AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR long reach zoom lens

*AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G portrait/lowlight lens

 

Things I did not buy today, but it sounds like I will probably want in the future:

 

*Polarizing filter to beat reflections - this is amazing, never heard of this before Kumi's link. Can I use one of these with any of the above lenses?

*Macro ring to turn that 35 into a macro-capable lens when needed, also at Kumi's suggestion. Is there a specific one I need? (I didn't see this by the lenses in Bic, but I was probably not looking for the right thing).

*A basic external flash for filling a scene, as needed.

*Stereo mic to enable video in stereo

*a better SD card - what is the minimum transfer speed I need to support the 1080p h.264 video and 4fps photo speed?

*bag & maybe UV lens protectors (are those worthwhile at all?)

 

I did consider an NEX-6 and liked the electronic viewfinder, but decided to go with my original D5100 idea since I wasn't sure I'd get double the use out of the NEX to justify its double price.

 

Thanks as always for your help!

Congratulations on the purchase!

 

*bag & maybe UV lens protectors (are those worthwhile at all?)

I use UV/regular lens protectors on all my lenses, but mostly just to protect them. Easier to replace a scratched protector than an entire lens should something bad happen.

The border is becoming grey already

 

I was checking lately Sony "DSLR" camera. I thought so. Sony Alpha mount, same DX sensor, mirror inside... but why the VF is dark?

Turns out, the mirror is only for AF, it's a fixed semi-transparent one, but VF is electronic... quite good, have to say. But from outside Sony SLT looks and handles like a DSLR. Apparently the photo quality is also very good.

There's even the full-frame version.

 

Those Sony SLT models are what I usually use for most of my shooting. I currently use the A77 (aps-c) and the A99 (full frame) along with a Fujifilm X series CSC. The VF is only dark until the camera is turned on.

 

Shot of the Full Frame A99 with VG and Minolta 500 AF Reflex lens attached:

DSC01936SLT-A77V35mm F220130116 by Visual Cacophony, on Flickr

 

A shot from the A99:

_DSC0314SLT-A99V85mm F1.4 ZA20121129 by Visual Cacophony, on Flickr

 

A77 with VG and 50 1.4

DSCF4892X-Pro1XF35mmF1.4 R20120803 by Visual Cacophony, on Flickr

 

A shot from the A77:

DSC01064SLT-A77V85mm F1.4 ZA20120627 by Visual Cacophony, on Flickr

Congratulations for the purchase, it's a very good set

 

I bought my 18-70 used because it's not in production now.

But I know that not everyone wants to hunt for used lenses. 18-55 is a very good lens too.

 

- polarizing filter - You can use it on any lens, just remember that You need circular polarizer, not linear.

Only problem is, good polarizer isn't cheap and You need 52mm diameter filter for 18-55 / 35 and 58mm filter for 55-300.

You can buy 58mm filter and 52-58 step-up ring to use one filter for all Your lenses.

With 18-55 and 55-300 there's this small problem, that it rotates during AF.

And You have to rotate the polarizer too (by hand) to achieve the best effect so it can be problematic at times.

 

- macro ring - You need macro extension tube for Nikon with full Autofocus compatibility, means it has several electrical contacts (and slotted AF drive shaft, in D5100 unused)

There are inexpensive sets of 3 different rings like these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/787224-REG/vello_ext_nd_auto_focus_ext_tube.html

 

UV filter... I don't use these. I handle lenses with care and use hood almost all the time.

Cheap ones degrade photo quality, so If You want one, buy a quality filter. Good brand name and multicoated.

 

For SD card refer to manual or reviews, but I think any decent Class 10 card will do.

 

The VF is only dark until the camera is turned on.

 

Yes, I figured it out. Had to go and ask the shop assistant for the battery to see anything inside

Personally, I went buy-happy when I got a new camera. If I were doing it again, I'd wait on the circular polarizer (CPL) until I found myself shooting near bodies of water or glass a lot. If you do buy one, a good 58mm multicoated one will set you back $50-100 (Nikon makes a good CPL). Definitely use step-up rings; that way you will need to buy less filters and can buy one great filter instead of two or more filters that do the same thing, but not as well.

 

Putting filters on your lenses is a religious issue among photographers (protection vs. image quality/expense). I side on the cheaper way--no filters. A good filter won't affect image quality in most conditions, but they will make your lens flare more, which definitely will affect image quality when it happens. If you use a UV filter, just like with CPL, you shouldn't use a cheap one, you'd use a multicoated one, which costs more. Maybe consider it you shoot around dirt, mud or ocean frequently. Hoods and caps should be enough protection otherwise.

 

SD cards of Class 10 or UHS 1 will do. UHS 1 costs a little more and is more for video users.

 

More important than any of these is a tripod, IMO. A fairly cheap one about $20-30 will be enough to start.

I'd wait on the circular polarizer (CPL) until I found myself shooting near bodies of water or glass a lot.

Some people use CPL a lot also for shots "in the field" - foliage reflects a lot of light, the same for air, so using CPL may turn the green more green and the sky more blue.

In Japan probably You can buy a Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D or Fujiyama Digital DHG Circular P.L.D. - they're quite good and not that pricey.

http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

 

And as gaiaswill said - some good, light tripod should be also on the list.

I suppose it is practical, but a CPL is not costless in use. It's an extra thing to worry about. It requires frequent adjustment. The viewfinder gets darker. A dark band can appear in the sky with a wide angle lens.

 

I just think it's a distraction when attention should be on composition and the subject. New users can stand to wait until later to get one.

Thanks again for the suggestions, all. I do have a tripod that I bought for my birding scope, which can also be used for the camera. So that's at least one thing I won't have to buy right away .

 

I took this new camera setup to Dolpa, and would like to inquire about the results I got. I seem to be having difficulty focusing perfectly on more than a small invisible plane, no matter what lens / focal length I used. For example, the following:

 

 

You can see that the puffball on Alice's clothing is in focus, but if you look at Alice's face it is ever so slightly out of focus -- even though it is less than 1cm farther away from the camera! Surely it is possible to do better, to have a larger "depth" that looks perfect. What camera setting might it be that controls this type of thing?

Aperture and distance to subject affect your depth of field--the range of what will appear to be in focus.

 

Smaller apertures have more depth of field: ex. f/2 has little, f/8 has a lot more.

 

Longer distances to the subject have more depth of field: shooting a doll less than 1 meter away means you would have to stop down more than if that doll was 2-3 meters away to get similar depth of field.

 

As you observed, focus is actually a flat plane. Problem is that most subjects are not flat. If your environment has poor lighting, you will have to balance the brightness of large aperture with getting enough depth of field. No free lunch, sorry.

 

I would suggest paying more attention on where you place the focus. For a portrait, the focus is usually placed on the eyes. Don't be afraid to use manual focus and live view because they can be useful even handheld.

 

I personally shoot my dolls mostly at f/2-f/5.6 with a 50mm-100mm lens on a crop camera like yours. If I use anything wider, I get too close that I distort the faces. If I use anything longer, I'm too far away that I run out of space indoors.

You can estimate the Depth of Field (DOF) with an online calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

There are similar programs for smartphones, too - search for DOF Calc or similar things.

For Nikon crop, I would use a 18-200, if its really for build, sharpness 17-55/2.8 for anything even for this hobby.

 

24/1.4 , 35/1.8 would do as well.

 

there are several factors, check your shutter speed , aperture, focus point, consider the lighting in the area best of all hold your camera well.

This thread's old, but I read through it and want to comment on it, since I think it will help others anyway.

 

24-70 is bulky, very expensive, not very wide on DX and in general not much better nor faster than used 150$ AF-S 18-70 for Your preferred use. This is a serious tool intended for a full frame.

щ(゜ロ゜щ)

 

 

The thing with lenses is that different lenses give images a certain look. Someone who's really familiar with a certain lens will be able to recognize photos taken with that lens. However, consumer zoom lenses don't have much of a look, they just get the job done. They may really shine when used in certain ways (for example, 200mm on the original 18-200 VR has beautiful bokeh but at 150 mm it's just ugly), but generally speaking the lens itself won't make the photo look special.

 

High end zoom lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8 look great but they're expensive. However, a quality prime lens will produce prettier pictures than the 24-70. Those prime lenses are engineered to have a certain look at their specific focal length, whereas the 24-70 has a consistent look that works at all its focal lengths.

 

The simplest qualities to judge a lens with are its sharpness and distortion. These are difficult things to get right in a zoom lens so that they work throughout their zoom range. This isn't an issue with prime lenses, the lens is either good or it isn't.

 

The interesting qualities that lenses have are colour & bokeh. Bokeh is relatively easy to figure out, just look for existing photos or try the lens for a while and you'll get a sense of how it blurs out background details — some lenses are really nice! Some primes produce very painterly results; the 24-70 in comparison just produces very smooth backgrounds. Colour is harder to describe because it's a much more subtle difference between lenses. However, a better quality lens will bring nicer & purer colour to the camera's sensor. On top of that, different lenses will have very subtle biases, such as being slightly warmer than other lenses, or producing smoother blues (eh, I don't know how to describe that).

 

After using a general-purpose zoom for a while (you need one anyway), you'll get a sense of the kind of photos you like taking, in terms of distance from the subject and focal length. You might find, for example, you rarely take photos past 60 mm. Anyway, once you've learned what you like just get a nice prime lens that fits. Buy an old, quality Nikon lens used on eBay for cheap... oh crap, the D5100 doesn't have a builtin focus motor. Well you can still use them and the focus sensor will work (there's a little dot in the viewfinder that says you're in focus), you'll just have to rotate the focus ring yourself. If you're taking photos of dolls hopefully you won't need to rush the focus

 

Actually, once you're interested in a particular lens, go to pbase-com and search for photos taken with that lens. Just go to search > Search by Camera > Nikon, then scroll down to the list of lenses.

This thread's old, but I read through it and want to comment on it, since I think it will help others anyway.

 

24-70 is bulky, very expensive, not very wide on DX and in general not much better nor faster than used 150$ AF-S 18-70 for Your preferred use. This is a serious tool intended for a full frame.

щ(゜ロ゜щ)

 

 

The thing with lenses is that different lenses give images a certain look. Someone who's really familiar with a certain lens will be able to recognize photos taken with that lens. However, consumer zoom lenses don't have much of a look, they just get the job done. They may really shine when used in certain ways (for example, 200mm on the original 18-200 VR has beautiful bokeh but at 150 mm it's just ugly), but generally speaking the lens itself won't make the photo look special.

 

High end zoom lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8 look great but they're expensive. However, a quality prime lens will produce prettier pictures than the 24-70. Those prime lenses are engineered to have a certain look at their specific focal length, whereas the 24-70 has a consistent look that works at all its focal lengths.

 

The simplest qualities to judge a lens with are its sharpness and distortion. These are difficult things to get right in a zoom lens so that they work throughout their zoom range. This isn't an issue with prime lenses, the lens is either good or it isn't.

 

The interesting qualities that lenses have are colour & bokeh. Bokeh is relatively easy to figure out, just look for existing photos or try the lens for a while and you'll get a sense of how it blurs out background details — some lenses are really nice! Some primes produce very painterly results; the 24-70 in comparison just produces very smooth backgrounds. Colour is harder to describe because it's a much more subtle difference between lenses. However, a better quality lens will bring nicer & purer colour to the camera's sensor. On top of that, different lenses will have very subtle biases, such as being slightly warmer than other lenses, or producing smoother blues (eh, I don't know how to describe that).

 

After using a general-purpose zoom for a while (you need one anyway), you'll get a sense of the kind of photos you like taking, in terms of distance from the subject and focal length. You might find, for example, you rarely take photos past 60 mm. Anyway, once you've learned what you like just get a nice prime lens that fits. Buy an old, quality Nikon lens used on eBay for cheap... oh crap, the D5100 doesn't have a builtin focus motor. Well you can still use them and the focus sensor will work (there's a little dot in the viewfinder that says you're in focus), you'll just have to rotate the focus ring yourself. If you're taking photos of dolls hopefully you won't need to rush the focus

 

Actually, once you're interested in a particular lens, go to pbase-com and search for photos taken with that lens. Just go to search > Search by Camera > Nikon, then scroll down to the list of lenses.

Finally something constructive.

 

*Truth to be told, after getting a 28-300, I find that the colour of it is better than my 2470 which I also don't even know why. Lol*

 

Prime lens such as the 58mm N or the 85mm N are just wonderful. I really love them lenses.

*Truth to be told, after getting a 28-300, I find that the colour of it is better than my 2470 which I also don't even know why. Lol*

I think I know what you mean. Personally I like it, but it seems to be a bit on the cool side in terms of colour. Reds and yellows still look great, but that's what I was referring to when I said 'smoother blues' above