Posted: 4/23/2013 5:23:45 AM EDT
|
So I just bought my first DSLR- Nikon D3100. I want to buy another lens but don't which one.
Think sitting in an auditorium (basketball or theater stage) and wanting full body shots of a dance performance (my daughter). I have the 30-55 lens what is the best next zoom I would need? Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Copy that! I've been shooting pictures like crazy. Trying different things. It's my wife that is complaining she can not see her better (when in doubt, blame the wife  )
|
|
You'll find out pretty soon that the lens that came with the camera is OK, but in the big picture, junk.
Your best bet, as already suggested, are fast primes. They obviously don't have adjustable zoom but that makes them cheaper. Once of the best lenses that won't break the bank is the Rokinon 35mm f1.4. No AF, but for a few hundred bucks it's a sharp, fast lens, with terrific bokeh. EDIT: Oh, well I didn't get that part about shooting indoor sports. I would not get anything cheap. The cheapest good option would be an older Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. The AF won't be as smooth as the new ones, but it will be sharp, fast, and won't break the bank at $800-$1000 (compared to $2K+ for a new 70-200). |
|
A 70-200 2.8 is the best purchase I've ever made. It's fast and good length for venue/event shooting. Add a 1.5x telecoverter and its enough length for most anything short of birding and still has enough speed for daytime shooting offhand.
After that, if you still have lens buying disease, look for a 17-50 or similar 2.8 and you'll be covered for 95% of anything you want to shoot. Then if you're not bankrupt you can get into primes for real speed. |
|
Quoted:
So I just bought my first DSLR- Nikon D3100. I want to buy another lens but don't which one. Think sitting in an auditorium (basketball or theater stage) and wanting full body shots of a dance performance (my daughter). I have the 30-55 lens what is the best next zoom I would need? Thanks! A "Proper" lens for that type of photography is going to be very expensive, you will need a fast zoom. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ~$800. I have a Nikon D90 with the 18 -200 VR and while it's a great all around lens it doesn't do very well at indoor sporting events. http://forums.cameratips.com/discussion/167/which-lens-is-best-for-shooting-dance-in-an-auditorium-and-on-the-beach |
|
Just want it to take photos like you describe in your OP? Nikon 70-300mm $160
Want to get serious about those kinds photos? Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 $2,400 ETA: There are other options at different price points, but if you want long shots in low light expect to spend a decent amount of money. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Copy that! I've been shooting pictures like crazy. Trying different things. It's my wife that is complaining she can not see her better (when in doubt, blame the wife )Well... Like another said, the 18-200 gives you a lot of versatility. The problem you have is indoor (low light) and a moving subject. All the VR in the world won't help you if you don't have light and your subject is moving around. You'll really have to crank the ISO up to get any still shots of action. Still, it will still have a use as a travel lens, if/when you outgrow it. I have the Tamron 18-270, and its really not bad for what it is. But since I got the 24-70, I haven't used it more than once or twice. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I just bought my first DSLR- Nikon D3100. I want to buy another lens but don't which one. Think sitting in an auditorium (basketball or theater stage) and wanting full body shots of a dance performance (my daughter). I have the 30-55 lens what is the best next zoom I would need? Thanks! A "Proper" lens for that type of photography is going to be very expensive, you will need a fast zoom. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ~$800. I have a Nikon D90 with the 18 -200 VR and while it's a great all around lens it doesn't do very well at indoor sporting events. http://forums.cameratips.com/discussion/167/which-lens-is-best-for-shooting-dance-in-an-auditorium-and-on-the-beach Is it a light issue with the indoor sporting events? I can see that somewhat with the speed & limited light. |
|
+1 on the 1.8f 50mm. I have the 70-300mm in 4.5f
Great for outside but way too slow for inside. I'm shooting a D60 and even 800+ iso the pics explode into pixels. the DX multiplication brings it out to 450mm I mostly shoot outside in good to excellent light so I'm OK with it If I had the $1500+ for a 1.8f I'd jump. Champagne taste on a beer budget. |
|
Quoted:
Just want it to take photos like you describe in your OP? Nikon 70-300mm $160 Want to get serious about those kinds photos? Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 $2,400 The 70-300 is not remotely fast enough for indoor events. And, though I've never handled THAT 70-300( I don't shoot Nikon), most 70-300 have color aberrations. Consider this Tamron 70-200 at $769 if you don't absolutely have to hive Nikkor lenses. I have one in a Pentax mount and have not been dissapointed. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=539401&is=REG&Q=&A=details |
| This place has a good reputation, despite a recent thread where the OP unfairly trashed them. Borrow Lenses |
|
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Are you retarded (this is GD after all). The guy said he was using the camera to SIT in the stands and try and take pictures of his daughter. I don't give a shit if you are a professional photographer, you could never acomplish the OP's goals AT ALL with a 50mm lens. WTF are you smoking. Yes, if he was wanting to learn photography that would be the first lens he should buy, but he isn't trying to learn and become a photographer, he is trying to capture photos of his daughter from afar where he does not have the ability to zoom with his feet. OP, Since you will be indoors your light levels will be low compared to someone shooting outdoors and in the sun. As such to get *good* pictures you are going to have to spring for a higher dollar lens. You want a fairly low aperture number (don't worry about what the aperture is or what it does just yet). The lower the aperture the lower the light you can work in and still get decent photos is what you need to remember. Also, you have an APSC camera (you don't need to know what that is either), your camera inherently adds to the zoom of your lens, so you don't have to get a crazy 300mm lens to get good zoom. For you a 120mm lens would be plenty. Now, your downfall. The d3100 sensor is notoriously bad in low light...it produces grainy images. If you are sitting in the stands and can't afford a good high quality lens you won't be happy with your shots. You are taking pictures of a moving object, so increasing shutter time isn't going to be an option for you. Your only option is to increase ISO or decrease aperture. Your camera has you limited to about 400iso indoors (I have a d3100 and a d5100 too). You might be able to push it to 800iso if the lighting in your daughter's gym is supurb. So if you are stuck at a 400iso, your only real choice is a low aperture lens of 1.8 or 1.4 in the range of 100-150mm. |
|
the 18-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 is no good at low light. You have two choice:
70-200mm f/2.8 from Nikon or the cheaper off brand or fixed zoom fast prime with at least 100mm to 150mm also, Sigma and Tokina makes a zoom lens in the 50-150mm f/2.8. That maybe the cheaper alternative zoom. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I just bought my first DSLR- Nikon D3100. I want to buy another lens but don't which one. Think sitting in an auditorium (basketball or theater stage) and wanting full body shots of a dance performance (my daughter). I have the 30-55 lens what is the best next zoom I would need? Thanks! A "Proper" lens for that type of photography is going to be very expensive, you will need a fast zoom. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ~$800. I have a Nikon D90 with the 18 -200 VR and while it's a great all around lens it doesn't do very well at indoor sporting events. http://forums.cameratips.com/discussion/167/which-lens-is-best-for-shooting-dance-in-an-auditorium-and-on-the-beach Is it a light issue with the indoor sporting events? I can see that somewhat with the speed & limited light. Correct. Low light levels with slow lenses cause long exposure times - not good for capturing pictures with lot of motion. The only fix is to get a fast lens that will let more light in. The 50mm f1.8 is a nice lens for the price but it is not a zoom so you give up some flexibility in composing your shots. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Was going to mention this also, everyone should own this, particularly for the price Since the OP is using the D3100, Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX. For concerts and indoor sports you'll need a fast zoom, think 70-200mm 2.8, and those don't come cheap (Nikkor 70-200mm VRII - $2,396.95). There are 3rd party options, Sigma (70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM - $1,399.00 or APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM - $1,099.00)), Tamron (70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD - $1,499.00) and Tokina, but even those aren't really cheap. Cheapest option for a fast short telephoto that comes to mind for a DX camera, is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G ($496.95) for a 35mm equivalent of 127.5mm. The D3100 without a AF motor kinda limits options here, at least for cheaper options. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I just bought my first DSLR- Nikon D3100. I want to buy another lens but don't which one. Think sitting in an auditorium (basketball or theater stage) and wanting full body shots of a dance performance (my daughter). I have the 30-55 lens what is the best next zoom I would need? Thanks! A "Proper" lens for that type of photography is going to be very expensive, you will need a fast zoom. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ~$800. I have a Nikon D90 with the 18 -200 VR and while it's a great all around lens it doesn't do very well at indoor sporting events. http://forums.cameratips.com/discussion/167/which-lens-is-best-for-shooting-dance-in-an-auditorium-and-on-the-beach Is it a light issue with the indoor sporting events? I can see that somewhat with the speed & limited light. Correct. Low light levels with slow lenses cause long exposure times - not good for capturing pictures with lot of motion. The only fix is to get a fast lens that will let more light in. The 50mm f1.8 is a nice lens for the price but it is not a zoom so you give up some flexibility in composing your shots. While I think any serious "student" of photography should star with a fast 50mm and learn to compost with there feet. Not everybody wants to be an artist. If the OP just wants to get a nice photos of his kids at events he's going to be disappointed in the length of the 50. 70-200s aren't cheap, but they are a necessity for indoor events, especially if you must shoot from the audience. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Copy that! I've been shooting pictures like crazy. Trying different things. It's my wife that is complaining she can not see her better (when in doubt, blame the wife )On a related note, I recommend this book Understanding Exposure If you work through it a page at a time, replicating each picture (or at least the technique behind them), you'll be better than most |
|
You've got the short lenses covered. Look for something that goes from about 90 mm (about my favorite) to 200 mm or so. Useful telephoto ranges but as another responder said kind of slow for inside work. Anything over 200 mm is hard to hand hold. Think of getting a nice monopod or tripod.
Nikon = really good stuff. |
|
Quoted:
While I think any serious "student" of photography should star with a fast 50mm and learn to compost with there feet. Not everybody wants to be an artist. If the OP just wants to get a nice photos of his kids at events he's going to be disappointed in the length of the 50. 70-200s aren't cheap, but they are a necessity for indoor events, especially if you must shoot from the audience. I love the 70-200, and everything you said is completely true, but I really hesitate to recommend a 2400 dollar lens to someone new to photography. Hell, at that point he may as well upgrade the body to something that can deal with ISO better. |
|
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. On an DX detector the 50mm is roughly equivalent to a 75mm on a film or FX camera-- a short telephoto rather than a normal lens. The 35mm 1.8 DX is, IMO, a more useful normal lens for the D3100. I do most of my shooting with one. I also have the 50mm but rarely use it and don't recommend it as a starter lens. ETA: RIF. OP wants a telephoto. Stlrain is correct on the 50mm being a good, cheap option if you can get away with just a short telephoto. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I think any serious "student" of photography should star with a fast 50mm and learn to compost with there feet. Not everybody wants to be an artist. If the OP just wants to get a nice photos of his kids at events he's going to be disappointed in the length of the 50. 70-200s aren't cheap, but they are a necessity for indoor events, especially if you must shoot from the audience. I love the 70-200, and everything you said is completely true, but I really hesitate to recommend a 2400 dollar lens to someone new to photography. Hell, at that point he may as well upgrade the body to something that can deal with ISO better. I wouldn't either, hell I haven't paid that much for a lens myself. That's why I shoot Pentax, I can buy all kinds of obsolete manual focus lenses cheap and still shoot them on a modern body. But, I think the Tamron at less than 800 is a good compromise. It's still pricey for an amateur, but it gets him the length and aperture he needs. The focus speed won't be as fast as a Nikon, but at 1/3rd the price it's acceptable. |
|
To help the OP a little more here's some photos to illustrate the potential problems.
I was photographing a dance performance with my Tamron 18-270mm 3.5-6.8, a very, very slow lens. While the stage lighting was pretty bright (depending on the scene) I still had to crank up my D5000's ISO to 1600 or 3200 in order to get a decent shutter speed. And even with this high ISOs, I still only got good shots when the performers were stationary. Just to give an idea how far I was from the stage. 
ISO-1600 35mm 1/8 sec 
ISO-1800 130mm f/6 1/100 sec And motion blur galore 
ISO-3200 270mm f/6.3 1/25 sec Moral of the story, you can pretty much rule out Super-zooms and cheap telephotos lens for these kind of photos. |
|
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Too dark also, unless you have a bitchin light setup. The lower F stop is worth its weight in gold indoors to capture the action. Use sneaker zoom. ETA Be aware though that lowing the F stop reduces your depth of field. There's a reason the good lenses are sooo fucking expensive. |
|
OP - here's a link to a thread in our Photography Forum you may find useful. Depending upon your distance from your seating to where your daughter performs, the 50/1.8G may be enough lens. (It has an "equivilent" focal length of 75mm on a DX body, and there are people who shoot stage performances with fast 24-70mm/ 70-200mm zooms or 85mm primes.) With a max aperture of f/1.8 it will allow more light to the sensor than a kit lens or cheaper variable aperture zoom. If she is far enough away you need more reach, you really need a fast zoom or telephoto lens with an f/2.8 or larger aperture. IMHO and YMMV |
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but here's what these f-numbers mean in terms of shutter speed: First, let's assume a reference f-stop of 2. This is a fast lens like the 35mm f1.8 shot almost wide-open. It will give you shallow depth of field but a fast shutter speed. Here's what happens as you stop the lens down (decrease the aperture size, increasing the f-number): f2 - Our reference, so we'll call this 1x shutter time. f2.8 - 1/2 as much light enters, so the shutter time multiplies x2 f4 - 1/4 as much light, so shutter time is x4 f5.6 - 1/8 as much light, so shutter time is x8 What this means shooting indoors, assuming you can shoot a certain photo at 1/60th of a second at f2: f2 - 1/60th second - probably your slowest shutter speed for hand-holding a 50mm lens f2.8 - 1/30th - you might be able to hand-hold the 50mm, some shots getting fuzzy f4 - 1/15th - lots of fuzziness from hand-shaking f5.6 - 1/8th - even more fuzziness, unusable This is why for shooting indoors you want a fast (low f-number) lens. |
|
LensHero is your friend. Stick with Nikon AF-S lenses for best compatibility. I agree that a fixed 50 mm is a good starting point. The 1.8 is very inexpensive, the 1.4 is better for low light. Image Stabilization is your friend. http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d3100-lens-by-nikon |
|
Basically OP, think speed. 2.8 is really the slowest you should buy if you want to shoot indoors with no flash.( And at sporting events and dance performances, forget flash, its ineffective at that distance.)
So, your options are expensive 2.8 zooms or primes that are even faster but are limiting in other ways. A 50mm 1.8 is a great lens for landscape and even portraits and it's really the only cheap prime. But it's awfully short for events. There's an 85 1.8 for around $500, but it's still shorter than I like in this role. It may be a viable option at smaller events, but is pretty short for sports. If you decide on a 70-200 you'll pay dearly for it, but you'll love it. Plus, everybody will think you're a pro because it's big. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I think any serious "student" of photography should star with a fast 50mm and learn to compost with there feet. Not everybody wants to be an artist. If the OP just wants to get a nice photos of his kids at events he's going to be disappointed in the length of the 50. 70-200s aren't cheap, but they are a necessity for indoor events, especially if you must shoot from the audience. I love the 70-200, and everything you said is completely true, but I really hesitate to recommend a 2400 dollar lens to someone new to photography. Hell, at that point he may as well upgrade the body to something that can deal with ISO better. The other side to this is that good lenses usually hold their value well, and they are really not that hard to sell on the secondary market. A good lens will also be useable on any camera body upgrade in the future –– definitely do not recommend upgrading the camera body at this point. Bodies are only going to get better with time, and unlike lenses, are not going to hold their value. The biggest issue, IMO is that good, long glass is usually heavy and somewhat cumbersome, meaning that they sometimes get used less for the caual photography crowd. Indoor "sports" photography is one of the more challenging environments to work with, but that is why you see all the pros out there with their 10 lb Canon lenses attached to monopods. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't need a zoom yet. Get the 1.8 50mm and learn how to use it! Seriously, for indoor shots any cheaper zoom is going to be too slow. Are you retarded (this is GD after all). The guy said he was using the camera to SIT in the stands and try and take pictures of his daughter. I don't give a shit if you are a professional photographer, you could never acomplish the OP's goals AT ALL with a 50mm lens. WTF are you smoking. Yes, if he was wanting to learn photography that would be the first lens he should buy, but he isn't trying to learn and become a photographer, he is trying to capture photos of his daughter from afar where he does not have the ability to zoom with his feet. OP, Since you will be indoors your light levels will be low compared to someone shooting outdoors and in the sun. As such to get *good* pictures you are going to have to spring for a higher dollar lens. You want a fairly low aperture number (don't worry about what the aperture is or what it does just yet). The lower the aperture the lower the light you can work in and still get decent photos is what you need to remember. Also, you have an APSC camera (you don't need to know what that is either), your camera inherently adds to the zoom of your lens, so you don't have to get a crazy 300mm lens to get good zoom. For you a 120mm lens would be plenty. Now, your downfall. The d3100 sensor is notoriously bad in low light...it produces grainy images. If you are sitting in the stands and can't afford a good high quality lens you won't be happy with your shots. You are taking pictures of a moving object, so increasing shutter time isn't going to be an option for you. Your only option is to increase ISO or decrease aperture. Your camera has you limited to about 400iso indoors (I have a d3100 and a d5100 too). You might be able to push it to 800iso if the lighting in your daughter's gym is supurb. So if you are stuck at a 400iso, your only real choice is a low aperture lens of 1.8 or 1.4 in the range of 100-150mm. Thank you. This is very helpful. Except for the whole calling someone retarded part. |
