For most amateurs, the Holy Grail of big time photography is a serious, SLR camera. And it's no wonder because with amateur point-and-shoot photography the camera is pretty much everything; therefore, it's no surprise when the seasoned point-and-shooter decides to move up in the photography world, he or she inevitably starts drooling over the latest Digital Rebel.
Additionally, the average consumer can easily think that the better the SLR camera, the better the photographer they'll become. That mentality could lead them to spend as much as $2,000 or even $3,000 on a top-of-the-line professional SLR.
I would submit, though, that that mentality is erroneous.
Essentially, a camera is a light-tight box, and what really matters is the sort of glass you're attaching to that box. Sure, professional cameras (and I use them) offer durability and some features that less expensive models don't offer, but the heart of image making has always been, and always will be, the lens.
For photojournalists, speed matters. And when a photographer is talking about lens speed, he's talking about how much light the lens allows into the light-tight box. The more light, the better; the more light, the faster.
Typical entry level lens options (standard on all SLR cameras, and even some pro SLRs) offer something like a variable aperture of 3.5-5.6. That means that at its widest setting, the lens has a maximum f-stop of 3.5, and at its longest zoom range it has a maximum f-stop of 5.6 (the smaller the number, the wider/faster the lens). While 3.5 is not pathetically slow, 5.6 is pathetically slow. In order to get a decent, well-balanced photograph in a semi-dark church, you'd really want to go with something much faster than 5.6.
Enter the 2.8 lens.
Two-point-eight lenses have been a staple of professional photojournalism for years. In most cases, only the pro models come with a 2.8 maximum aperture and, therefore, the lens is built rugged and sharp -- two distinctions pros demand.
The only sort of lenses I carry in my bag are 2.8 lenses. They're the sharpest tools in a photojournalist's tool chest.
Trackback URL: http://photowaco.com/blog/bloo.trackback.php/5.
Thanks, Brian. I'll see if I can think of a couple of options for you when I get some spare time. But for what it's worth, I think a standard 50mm 1.8 (yes, 1.8, even faster than 2.8!) is the BEST bang for your buck in photography. They run about $100 and they're ridiculously fast and sharp. Great for portraits.
Brian,
Let me elaborate a bit here ...
A 50mm 1.8 is, in my opinion, an essential lens. It's crazy fast, crazy sharp and with the usual 1.5x conversion factor on digital cameras, it makes for a nice portrait lens. (You can use that 1.8 even outdoors to focus in on a subjects face without any background distraction.)
Of course, you've also got the option of buying a 50mm 1.4, which is even faster. But the 1.4 usually costs about $150 more than the 1.8.
Since you're wisely shooting with Nikon, I'd stick with only Nikkor lenses. Believe me, I've used third party stuff like Tamron and Sigma and it's all horrible compared to Nikkor lenses.
If you want to shoot semi-wide angle you can buy a used 24mm 2.8 prime lense from KEH.com (the most reputable dealer of used equipment in America) for only $179. Of course, that's in "bargain" condition but my experience with KEH is that even their bargain stuff is considered "excellent" by most other used camera dealer standards. I've never been burned by KEH -- they're wonderful.
You can also pick up a used, "excellent" 20mm 2.8 prime for $349 from KEH.
They've got similar deals on prime telephoto lenses as well. You should go to their site and browse around.
Go under "camera store" then "Nikon Autofocus" under the "35mm" heading. Even though they're made for 35mm AF Nikons, they work perfectly with the digital cameras except the D40x.
I use both film and digital and interchange my AF Nikkors between the two systems.
Unforunately, zooms can be up there in price. I'm thinking you probably don't want to spend several hundred dollars on a lens, but if you do I could give you some good suggestions.
Hope that helps!
Wow Eric, I wasn't expecting that detailed of a response but I really appreciate it.
The 50mm 1.8 sounds like it would really fit my needs. My primary need far a fast lens is indoor shots(like my daughter's gymnastics meets) where I probably wouldn't be using a zoom lens anyway.
Of course, I'd love to have a faster zoom but I can't really justify the cost. For my use, the quality of the kit lenses(28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G) is really pretty good - especially outdoors with plenty of light.
Thanks again for your help!
If you've ever got a $1,000 burning a hole in your pocket, you can pick up an Autofocus Nikkor 80-200 2.8 D. It's absolutely gorgeous -- I've got one myself. ;-)
Yes, the kit lenses work great with plenty of light. But if you want to start using shallow depth of field (even in the middle of the day), especially for portraits, you'd want to eventually get something with a wider aperture.
Hey Eric! Surfed over from the Thinklings. Enjoying your blog.
You have any suggestions for a good 2.8 lens(prime or not) that won't break the bank? After having used manual SLRs all my life and digital P&Ss for the past several years I finally broke down and bought a digital SLR - it's a refurb Nikon D80 from Cameta.
The kit lenses it came with are ok but a faster lens would be nice - especially for indoor and low-light ourdoor shots.
Keep up the good work!