[latentpotential]

Originally Posted by scorpion_blore

Guys, need suggestion. I currently own a Nikon D5200 with 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm in the lookout for better bokeh and higher focal length.
For good bokeh, I am considering Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX.
For zoom lens, I'm looking at a lens that can be used for landscape as well as wildlife shots. I saw Tamron 18-270mm and it fits the bill perfectly, although at a higher cost (~27k).

I know the choice of lens is personal choice and varies from person to person based on the usage. If you were in my shoes, which would you pick:
1) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX along with 18-55mm kit lens....or
2) Tamron 18-270mm lens that covers everything. Can dispose my 18-55mm. However I'll compromise on the bokeh.

I have the used the Tamron 18-270 PZD version on a 550d extensively as a travel lens. It is small and light and has enough reach to be useful as a walkabout lens when you are not very particular about the nitty gritty details. It does give acceptable pictures.

If you want bokeh, this is not the glass for you.

For technical stuff: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron...I-VC-PZD-Canon

[Sudipto-S-Team]

Gsurya - I am not a professional photographer either but do deal with a lot of them. A zoom lens is a lot more complicated lens in terms of its construction. It has a lot more elements and more complicated coatings than a fixed focal length lens. That's why they suggest that when it comes to a zoom lens, particularly the larger ones, keep the cleaning part to a bare minimum. The coatings take a depreciation when you get it cleaned. Don't clean the lens unless it is really affecting your photographs and it is visible in the final print. What I mean is, there is no need to obsess over a "clean lens", like it was your car :-)

[M35]

Bought a DSLR bag/ Backpack. I was contemplating on a Lowpro Runner 450 AW. It was recently that I was introduced a brand, here in CHINA, called ‘Ainogirl’ by my friends. When I examined it physically, I was mighty impressed with the quality and utility of its current generation and large selling variants.

• The variant A2123 has dimensions similar to Lowpro Runner 450 AW but appeared to have better built with more features and better cushioning. Hence, it was a no brainer and an easy decision.
• It is Nylon based and has Neoprene straps +YKK zipper.
• It fits very well my Camera body with Tamron 150-600 mounted with additional slots for my all other lenses + my flashgun + Extension tubes + Filters.
• I can carry my sturdy Tripods and also there are provisions for a couple of more monopods/tripods.
• It has dedicated internal compartments for my Laptop and iPad Air 2
• The main compartment unzips and opens at the rear of the bag, instead of on the front, so the surface that you wear remains uppermost when delving into the bag.
• There are a couple of pouches on the straps= hip bags for mobile phones + lens caps etc.
• In the main compartment, there is a removable soft pouch for stashing battery chargers and for organising cables.
• It comes with a slip-over rain cover.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by scorpion_blore

Guys, need suggestion. I currently own a Nikon D5200 with 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm in the lookout for better bokeh and higher focal length.
For good bokeh, I am considering Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX.
For zoom lens, I'm looking at a lens that can be used for landscape as well as wildlife shots. I saw Tamron 18-270mm and it fits the bill perfectly, although at a higher cost (~27k).

I know the choice of lens is personal choice and varies from person to person based on the usage. If you were in my shoes, which would you pick:
1) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX along with 18-55mm kit lens....or
2) Tamron 18-270mm lens that covers everything. Can dispose my 18-55mm. However I'll compromise on the bokeh.

1. I have the 35mm F1.8DX with D3300. The lens if fantastic at F1.8. I use it extensively for indoor shoots. The kit 18-55 is excellent when there is light and you want things sharp (F >= 8). The 35mm on DX sensor has the same FOV as the 50mm on film or FX sensor, so you may call the 35mm a "normal" lens.

2. In general the longer the zoom range, the lesser the quality. As you have the 18-55, which by the way is an excellent lens, search for some thing starting at 70mm - 70-200, 70-300 etc. In case you are shooting distant objects most of the time a prime telephoto is a much better option.

Here is a portrait with 35mm at F1.8

[gsurya]

Originally Posted by latentpotential

I have the used the Tamron 18-270 PZD version on a 550d extensively as a travel lens. It is small and light and has enough reach to be useful as a walkabout lens when you are not very particular about the nitty gritty details. It does give acceptable pictures.

If you want bokeh, this is not the glass for you.

For technical stuff: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron...I-VC-PZD-Canon

I have this lens too & love it for its walkabout purposes. Yes you cannot get extraordinary quality pics like with Canon 100-400. There is a newer Tamron 16-300 version of this lens that is an improvement.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by scorpion_blore

I'm in the lookout for better bokeh and higher focal length.
For good bokeh, I am considering Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX.
For zoom lens, I'm looking at a lens that can be used for landscape as well as wildlife shots. I saw Tamron 18-270mm and it fits the bill perfectly, although at a higher cost (~27k).

Good bokeh in what type of photos?

I would suggest saving up and adopting a phased approach, there is no one lens magic bullet if you care about image quality (which you increasingly will):
1. 18-140 mm walkaround, landscape
2. 50mm or 85mm f/1.8G (the latter better for portraits, more expensive)
3. 70-300mm VR for wildlife. If you go beyond 300mm, price will increase exponentially.

This is what 18-105 can give you, 18-140mm is a little better:


Here is what 70-300mm can give you (in terms of out of focus areas/wildlife)




Here is what a 85mm fast lens can give you without flash or props (this is a f/1.4, but f/1.8 would be nearly as good)

Originally Posted by latentpotential

Fungus advise please. Getting a 100-400L Canon for a great price. Catch: Fungus. Please see the attached and help me with your opinions.

Also, picked up a 50mm 1.4 as well and selling off my 70-300 non L to fund the next purchase.

I would recommend you go for a Tamron or Sigma C 150-600mm if you can handle the weight and length. Should cost the same as used 100-400mm. AF and sharpness would be as good.

[scorpion_blore]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Good bokeh in what type of photos?

I would suggest saving up and adopting a phased approach, there is no one lens magic bullet if you care about image quality (which you increasingly will):
1. 18-140 mm walkaround, landscape
2. 50mm or 85mm f/1.8G (the latter better for portraits, more expensive)
3. 70-300mm VR for wildlife. If you go beyond 300mm, price will increase exponentially.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I'm looking for good bokeh in portraits. Meanwhile if the lens could be used for landscape too, it would be great. This is the reason I had Nikkor 35mm on my mind. Since I use D5200, 35mm would translate to ~50mm on a crop sensor.

I went on a drive through Bandipur and Nagarhole National Park recently, and missed quite a lot of good shots due to lack of right lens. I had 18-55 kit lens with me then.
I don't like changing the lens too often on a holiday, and would like a general walkaround lens. Hence I though of Tamron 18-270mm.

Hence the question about a superzoom lens with good bokeh. From the responses, it looks like there is no such magic lens. So I'm thinking of getting a Tamron 18-270mm as a general walkaround lens for vacations to cover all focal lengths, and a 35mm for portraits. After getting these, I can sell my 18-55mm kit lens.

Please suggest if this is ok, or is there any other lens I can consider?

[M35]

Originally Posted by scorpion_blore

I don't like changing the lens too often on a holiday, and would like a general walkaround lens. Hence I though of Tamron 18-270mm.

There are a couple of newer ‘do everything’ type of glasses.

• Nikon 18-300 VR
• Sigma 18-300 OS Contemporary

Do more research on these as well before making a final decision.

[sdp1975]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Here is what a 85mm fast lens can give you without flash or props (this is a f/1.4, but f/1.8 would be nearly as good)

I've picked up a canon 85 mm/1.8 recently for my APS-C.

It's a very good lens, but for close-up portraits at ~ 5 ft , using it at 1.8 makes the DOF very thin. I usually focus on the eyes, and the rest of the face - ear , hair at the back - goes out of focus.

When used from a distance like 15~20 ft, the 1.8 aperture results in an acceptable DOF but up close, I can't use the 1.8 and the 2.8 looks better, at a cost of reduced bokeh.

[rm_arjuna]

Which would be better buy Nikon 5300 / 5500 18-140 vs canon d70 / d760 18-135 ,both I am getting at very good price from the distributor directly. Very confused pls help me make a informed decision.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by scorpion_blore

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I'm looking for good bokeh in portraits. Meanwhile if the lens could be used for landscape too, it would be great. This is the reason I had Nikkor 35mm on my mind. Since I use D5200, 35mm would translate to ~50mm on a crop sensor.

I went on a drive through Bandipur and Nagarhole National Park recently, and missed quite a lot of good shots due to lack of right lens. I had 18-55 kit lens with me then.
I don't like changing the lens too often on a holiday, and would like a general walkaround lens. Hence I though of Tamron 18-270mm.

Hence the question about a superzoom lens with good bokeh. From the responses, it looks like there is no such magic lens. So I'm thinking of getting a Tamron 18-270mm as a general walkaround lens for vacations to cover all focal lengths, and a 35mm for portraits. After getting these, I can sell my 18-55mm kit lens.

Please suggest if this is ok, or is there any other lens I can consider?

As you have rightly said, there is no single "do it all" lense. Here are a few tips that have helped me

1. Instead of buying a dedicated "wide" lens, use the 35mm/50mm/85mm to take multiple shots and stitch them into one panorama. Stitching is pretty idiot-proof especially if you overlap the shots to 30%. In landscape things rarely move (unless there is a stiff wind), so stitched panoramas are easy. Here is an example of stitched shot I had taken at a marriage reception

Three shot panorama, 35mm F1.8DX

2. If you need more than 200mm for distant shots, you are better off with a 300mm F4 prime. It is faster, has better IQ and quite light. The alternatives are 70-200 f2.8 or f4 zooms, but they are more expensive.

3. The current 18-55 VR-II is an excellent lens, and IQ is better than most lenses upto twice the price. I use it with my D3300 (24MP), and it has never disappointed me.

4. With 24MP body, you have plenty of real estate, so cropping to 2kx2k (maximum allowable on most sites) is no problem. Here is an 800x800 pixel crop of a bird



18-55 VR-II at 55mm
In general a cropped image from a good lens is better than an outcropped image from a mediocre lens.

[ToyotaFan]

I currently have a Nikon D80 and a D5100 and 4 lenses 50mm, 35mm fixed focus and 18-135, 18-55 and 55-300mm zoom lenses. I have an SB 600 flash and a shutter remote also. Am going to zanskar this year and am looking to upgrade.

I am more into landscape and portrait photography not concerned with much wildlife and sports photography. Options-
D750 from Nikon
Alpha 77 from Sony (have heard good reviews about mirror less tech)

Also wanted to know if upgrading to FX would be worth it or should I go in for a new DX body 7200 or D5500 to get new features and use the existing lenses. Your help will be highly appreciated.

[sdp1975]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

I am more into landscape and portrait photography not concerned with much wildlife and sports photography. Options-
D750 from Nikon
Alpha 77 from Sony (have heard good reviews about mirror less tech)

I had a quick look at dpreview and the flickr photo pool for the D80, and was left impressed with the landscape and portrait shots.

Why do you want to upgrade at all ,only because it's a decade old and 10 MP ? Or are there other specific shortcomings you would like to address ?

[ToyotaFan]

Originally Posted by sdp1975

I had a quick look at dpreview and the flickr photo pool for the D80, and was left impressed with the landscape and portrait shots.

Why do you want to upgrade at all ,only because it's a decade old and 10 MP ? Or are there other specific shortcomings you would like to address ?

I bought the camera in 2007 so yes its old but i thought that the new cameras have much better dynamic range and a host of other features like wifi which might add to the overall experience. I also got a D 5100 in 2012 but was now looking for an upgrade. I wanted to know which camera Sony or Nikon would be a better upgrade and would spending 1.5 lakhs be advisable considering new DX format cameras like D 7200 and D 5500 are also getting great reviews.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

I currently have a Nikon D80 and a D5100 and 4 lenses 50mm, 35mm fixed focus and 18-135, 18-55 and 55-300mm zoom lenses. I have an SB 600 flash and a shutter remote also. Am going to zanskar this year and am looking to upgrade.

I am more into landscape and portrait photography not concerned with much wildlife and sports photography. Options-
D750 from Nikon
Alpha 77 from Sony (have heard good reviews about mirror less tech)

Also wanted to know if upgrading to FX would be worth it or should I go in for a new DX body 7200 or D5500 to get new features and use the existing lenses. Your help will be highly appreciated.

For landscapes an FX camera is definitely an upgrade.
. MF Wide angle primes such as 20/24/28mm F2.8 are available at a reasonable cost. On FX a 24mm will have the FOV of a 16mm on FX. So wour wides will be wide on FX.
. FX sensors have slightly better DR as well as lower noise at higher ISO compared to DX, a definite advantage.

I would suggest that you sell of the zooms and get the 85mm F1.8 for portraits. In case the 35mm is a DX lens, sell it off and get a pre owned 24/28mm F 2.8 lens (the 28mm F2.8 AIS lens is still made by Nikon and it sells for around $500). For landscapes you do not need a fast lens, as most of the shots are generally at F8 or more.

At a later stage if you need a long lens, get the 300mm F4, much much better than a zoom.