PHOTOGRAPHERS! NIKON lens sale alert...

[Steelharp]

My wife surprised me with my Christmas present, early... Wolf Camera has Nikon DX lenses on sale right now, 55-200 for $149 (reg $249) and 55-300 for $249 (reg $399). She got me the 55-300... figures it might get me outta my guns for a bit.

(Wrong, but a great wife, indeed... )

[Jasongar8]

Hey Mike, is the 55-300 a VR? I found the 55-200 VR but not the 300.

[Jasongar8]

Nevermind I found it. Link to both below. Thanks Mike!

Nikon 55-200mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor Lens w/ Vibration Reduction - 2166 - WolfCamera.com

Nikon 55-300mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6G DX Nikkor ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens - 2197 - WolfCamera.com

[Guest WyattEarp]

this may be important to some and not to others, and I understand not everyone can afford $1,000+ lenses,

but those lenses traditionally aren't very good lenses. they're the cheap end of the spectrum, but work good for

simple uses and the beginner photographer who is still learning, and will do pretty good in most day light situations

but at night or in poor lighting situations, you can expect to have very noisy photos with lots of grain, lack of detail

and fuzziness. You can put your camera on a tripod, set it to bulb mode and keep the shutter open for an extended

period of time, but this applies only for photographing still scenes, as action shots will cause blur.

as a photographer gets better and his/her skills improve, its usually typical to begin moving towards faster lenses.

when I say faster, I'm talking about the aperture. the aperture is the f/4 or f/2.8 that you see in the links above.

f/1.2 is the fastest lens out there, and these lenses are super expensive

f/1.4

f/1.8

f/2

f/2.8

f/3.5

f/4

f/4.5

f/5.6

are typically the only aperture speeds sold for most lenses. I try to by F/4 or faster. the faster the lens, the more light is

allowed into the lens and you get a sharper picture, more clarity and you can photographer in low light situations and get

photos without grain/noise in them.

knowing what you're buying and how it will performs is a big help when buying lenses, because there's nothing worse than getting

a lens, only to find out it won't do what you want it do, and you just spent that money.

another thing, the faster lenses, hold their resale value. the lenses that have changing apertures at different focal length

(i.e. 50-300 f/4.5-5.6) usually don't hold good value unless it's a big long telephoto lens with VR (in Nikon) or IS (Canon), and those usually go for about $1500 or more.

hope I haven't confused anyone too much, but I don't ever like to see anyone buy something that's not going to benefit them in the long run.

Edited December 6, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Guest m14man]

same price on amazon.

[strickj]

Good lenseseses. I paid more then that for my non-VR models

this may be important to some and not to others, and I understand not everyone can afford $1,000+ lenses,

but those lenses traditionally aren't very good lenses. they're the cheap end of the spectrum, but work good for

simple uses and the beginner photographer who is still learning, and will do pretty good in most day light situations

but at night or in poor lighting situations, you can expect to have very noisy photos with lots of grain, lack of detail

and fuzziness. You can put your camera on a tripod, set it to bulb mode and keep the shutter open for an extended

period of time, but this applies only for photographing still scenes, as action shots will cause blur.

as a photographer gets better and his/her skills improve, its usually typical to begin moving towards faster lenses.

when I say faster, I'm talking about the aperture. the aperture is the f/4 or f/2.8 that you see in the links above.

f/1.2 is the fastest lens out there, and these lenses are super expensive

f/1.4

f/1.8

f/2

f/2.8

f/3.5

f/4

f/4.5

f/5.6

are typically the only aperture speeds sold for most lenses. I try to by F/4 or faster. the faster the lens, the more light is

allowed into the lens and you get a sharper picture, more clarity and you can photographer in low light situations and get

photos without grain/noise in them.

knowing what you're buying and how it will performs is a big help when buying lenses, because there's nothing worse than getting

a lens, only to find out it won't do what you want it do, and you just spent that money.

another thing, the faster lenses, hold their resale value. the lenses that have changing apertures at different focal length

(i.e. 50-300 f/4.5-5.6) usually don't hold good value unless it's a big long telephoto lens with VR (in Nikon) or IS (Canon), and those usually go for about $1500 or more.

hope I haven't confused anyone too much, but I don't ever like to see anyone buy something that's not going to benefit them in the long run.

You have that bassaackwards. The smaller the aperture (higher F number), the sharper the image will be. With a zoom lens at , say F2.4, your depth of field will be very shallow. A persons nose may be crisp but their ear will be slightly out of focus, and the back of their head slightly further out of focus.

Shoot with a smaller aperture of, say F10, and the entire head will be crisp and sharp.

I think you are confusing a blurred background from an open aperture with overall sharpness. It doesn't matter how blurred the background is, your subject can still be unsharp.

About the only advantage to using a fast lens for an average shooter is the ability of shooting in low-light conditions. And even that isn't that major of an advantage with today's sensor qualities. A zoom lens can blur the background regardless of aperture size.

Edited December 6, 2011 by strickj

[Guest WyattEarp]

You have that bassaackwards. The smaller the aperture (higher F number), the sharper the image will be. With a zoom lens at , say F2.4, your depth of field will be very shallow. A persons nose may be crisp but their ear will be slightly out of focus, and the back of their head slightly further out of focus.

Shoot with a smaller aperture of, say F10, and the entire head will be crisp and sharp.

I think you are confusing a blurred background from an open aperture with overall sharpness. It doesn't matter how blued the background is, your subject can still be unsharp.

About the only advantage to using a fast lens for an average shooter is the ability of shooting in low-light conditions. And even that isn't that major of an advantage with today's sensor qualities. A zoom lens can blur the background regardless of aperture size.

just curious which part I have backwards? the lower the number the faster the lens, which is what I said to begin with. I wasn't talking depth of field though, that's a whole different conversation

[strickj]

just curious which part I have backwards? the lower the number the faster the lens, which is what I said to begin with. I wasn't talking depth of field though, that's a whole different conversation

I try to by F/4 or faster. the faster the lens, the more light is

allowed into the lens

and you get a sharper picture, more clarity

You get a sharper image with a smaller aperture.

Edited December 6, 2011 by strickj

[Guest WyattEarp]

You get a sharper image with a smaller aperture.

I guess it would have to depend on what you're photographing and in what situation and the subject you're focusing on. we're both right, and we're both wrong here, lol.

Comparative Digital SLR Lens Review: Fast, Wide Aperture Lenses

In addition to that aspect, there are three other benefits that are available with many “fast” lenses:

• Superior Quality: Because most wide aperture lenses are prosumer grade products, they usually feature very rugged construction, superior mechanisms and high-grade optical elements. Often, image quality is excellent at the commonly used f/stops, from about f/4 to f/11.
  

• More Effective Focusing: A wide aperture transmits a great deal of light, making manual focusing easier in dark locations, such as a theatre, a cathedral or a castle. Autofocusing is also quicker and more reliable in low light because a “fast” lens transmits more light to the camera’s AF sensor. This can make autofocus possible in situations where the camera would balk if you were using a more typical f/4-5.6 zoom.
  

• Shallow Depth of Field: Because very wide apertures (small f/numbers) provide less depth-of-field only the focused area will appear sharp in a photo. Especially at focal lengths of 135mm or longer–particularly in close focusing–it’s possible to render a cluttered background as a soft blur of color. A subject that’s sharply framed against a soft backdrop will immediately attract and hold the viewer’s attention. Be sure to focus very carefully however–on the most important subject element, such as an eye in a portrait–to ensure that it will be sharply rendered.
  

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I thought Wyatt was speaking more about sharp images in a wider variety of lighting conditions. There is significantly more noise at lower light levels.

In addition, I think Wyatt does a lot of action photography. If an action shot on an overcast day or at night forces a slow shutter speed due to the lens being too slow, then a motion-blurred shot ain't exactly gonna be "sharp" regardless of how remarkable the depth of field. It would be a bummer if a telephoto lens is so slow that you can only avoid non-blurred, non-noisy sports pictures on the sunniest days.

But unless somebody is willing to sink thousands into ultra-fast lenses, a person must do as good a job with the tools at hand.

I was window-shopping reading Nikon lens reviews awhile ago. Toying with the idea of getting a modern Nikon SLR body. Some reviewers were comparing some of the $300 ballpark nikon zooms to similar-spec $700 nikon zooms, and said the $700 zooms were sharper because of better optics (duh), but also that the cheaper zooms worked significantly slower on the camera for focus and zoom. So having the "middle priced" items made it quicker and easier to take pictures even if the "middle priced" lenses are not drastically (optically) faster.

Just repeating what I was reading. Dunno.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Jasongar8]

Ok guys you have done got way over my head.

I am going to get one of those I linked. They may not be the best, but I dont need the best. I just want something with more zoom than my 55 that my camera came with. So, is there any reason I should get the 55-200 over the 55-300? Since they both are 55, I think the only difference is the extra 100 you get with 55-300. I may be talking out of my ass here but that's why I'm asking. So which one should I get?

[Guest WyattEarp]

Ok guys you have done got way over my head.

I am going to get one of those I linked. They may not be the best, but I dont need the best. I just want something with more zoom than my 55 that my camera came with. So, is there any reason I should get the 55-200 over the 55-300? Since they both are 55, I think the only difference is the extra 100 you get with 55-300. I may be talking out of my ass here but that's why I'm asking. So which one should I get?

nope stick with the 300, it's got a smaller F/ number, which means it let's more light in. but before you buy, go check out bhphotovideo.com and see what their prices are on the same lens. Wolf camera in my experience has always been overpriced, I've usually gotten the best deals on bhphotovideo.com

but shop around, these are the main spots, and be sure to take a look see over on ebay and amazon. This time of year, lot's of good deals going on everywhere.

Digital cameras, lenses and photo gear at calumetphoto.com

B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras

Buy Used Cameras, Photographic and Video Equipment from Adorama Camera.

Photographic Equipment, Supplies and Services

[Steelharp]

I got the 55-300. It gives that little extra, and at $150 off, it just seemed the one to get.

(IMO... someone who earns their keep with a camera should really look at the faster, more expensive lenses listed in this thread. If I made my living with a gun, I would want a $10,000 1911. I don't need that. In either lenses or guns.)

[Guest WyattEarp]

I got the 55-300. It gives that little extra, and at $150 off, it just seemed the one to get.

(IMO... someone who earns their keep with a camera should really look at the faster, more expensive lenses listed in this thread. If I made my living with a gun, I would want a $10,000 1911. I don't need that. In either lenses or guns.)

i wouldn't go that far, there are a lot of people out there who are big into photography as a hobby, and just do it to get away from the stresses of life. it's their time to relax and enjoy themselves.

on the same account, I could easily say if you're not into it as a hobby or to make money, you should just go to best buy and purchase a $300 or $400 point and shoot and let the pro's handle the real camera's and lenses, but I encourage everyone who gets the chance to pickup a DSLR to

behold the world of wonder that awaits them.

If you want to learn more about that camera and how it works and what it can do, pickup a Digital Field Guide for your make and model. They make these books for both Canon and Nikon and IMO should be the books that come with the camera instead of that thick pad of recycled paper they send out with it.

Even with cheaper lenses, you can still learn some new things you can do. Just beware: Learning more about your camera has the tendency to create big holes in your wallet, and lighten your bank account drastically

Amazon.com: Digital Field Guide Nikon

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I get not-bad amateur results with an ancient Nikon point-and-shoot digital, and have been pleased with a tiny panasonic sdram video camera I picked up about three years ago. Have been doing off'n'on research about getting a "near hi-end" Nikon dslr body and a couple of $800 ballpark lenses, since apparently the things nowadays work just as good for HD video recording as they do for still images. One camera to do a bang-up job on stills and movies.

I have an old Nikon F film camera and a couple of vintage nikon lenses. Haven't used it for years. It did a pretty good job taking pictures in yesteryear, and some people are still film fans. But honestly, the best pictures I took with the old Nikon F are generally not as good as what I take with the seven-year-old tiny Nikon point-and-shoot digital, processed with photoshop and printed on an HP color laser printer. Some of the high-end photo inkjets supposedly print much better, but even a color laser ain't shabby at all. True film buffs need to at least go to 2.25" or bigger film format to really compete against digital in my opinion (which isn't worth much).

The old Nikon F era lenses were high-quality in the day, but I think one reason my old film pictures suffered, was that compared to modern lenses they were not that fantastic. They are not really ultra-sharp if you start looking critically thru the viewfinder or at the pictures.

It is pretty amazing what modern camera lenses can do, even the little 10:1 or bigger ratio mini-zoom lenses in video cameras and point-and-shoot digitals. That is a crazy wide zoom ratio to have not-awful image quality. Mass production keeps the price "reasonable".

I've not been active with astronomy lately, but telescopes good enough for precise viewing, or especially astrophotography get insanely expensive. An astronomical instrument has to be sharper than even a top-of-the-line camera lens, though some of the really-expensive telephoto camera lenses are good enough for astrophotography. Telescopes tend to cost more because they are not mass-manufactured at the rate of photo/video equipment, but if it was cheaper than "kinda expensive" to make an excellent telescope, then somebody somewhere would probably be doing it.

The high-end refractor telescopes sought-after for astro photography are basically just really big, carefully built telephoto lenses. However they usually only have 3 or sometimes 4 lens elements, and there is a lot of expert human labor devoted to tweaking each of the lenses and also the combination arranged in the objective cell. You can't hardly find the most-excellent refractor telescopes with an F-ratio much lower than F6 or F8. The small volume manufacturers are so picky about color correction and such, they just believe that physics makes it near-impossible to make a "near perfect" large lens with a much lower F-ratio than F6 to F8.

That is what makes the camera telephotos with numerous lens elements and pretty high optical quality and very low F-ratio, even more amazing-- That they work as good as they do and they are cheap enough that you don't have to be NASA or the Defense Dept to be able to afford to buy em. Though only the most expensive examples will do a great job pointed at the sky.