Lens Combinations

[Tuck]

Hi,

I have a D7000 with an old 35-70 and am looking into the best lens combinations to get,

So far i want the 55-200, used for surf photography, would go to the 300 but i understand that at that length it gets a bit tricky with hand held, so i believe the 55-200 would be able to be used in more situations.

i would like to add a prime to this 35 or 50 not sure which tho, would like to use the prime as the one i most keep on the camera.

Which of the 35 or 50 would be better than also are there other lenses that would compliment better?

Thanks

[ktuli]

Tom,

Unfortunately, without know what you expect to be shooting most often, there's no way to say whether the 35 or 50 would work better for you. Once you determine that, I think the answer might just end up being automatic...

- Bill

[Tuck]

Im relativly new to photography so am still finding my groove, i would imagine i would use the prime for indoor and general use, so would the 35 be better as i can get closer/be able to take photos in smaller spaces, as the 35 is more expensive than the 50 i would need a good reason as to why it would be a better option.

im ideally after something that i can use in a lot of different situations

[ktuli]

Tom,

Try using your 35-70 for a while... take a look through your old photos... see what focal length you use most often for the shots you like the most. That might show you which lens would work better for you - though it is often typical for people to use the extremes of their zoom lenses (either 35 or 70 in this case) and a lot less frequent in the mid-ranges, so that might not work as well.

I actually do have both a 35 and 50 myself, and I find I use the 50mm more often, but that's just me.

- Bill

[Nomadr]

the 300 would only become tricky handheld if you didnt have much light, ie 300mm requires 1/300th sec to avoid camera shake (unless its VR),some may say it requires more due to the crop factor, to be honest for everyday lens i would stick to the 35-70 if its the 2.8 macro, its a brilliant lens and cost a fortune new, (£999 in the UK),if you want to add a prime you need to think long and hard about what you are going to use it for ? i use primes mainly for low light and also to make my camera look smaller and less conspicuous,if your looking at any other reason then you will kick yourself if you missed a shot because you didnt have your 35-70 on,
cheers martyn

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Tuck and welcome to CiC,

I have D300 and my basic lens combination is a 16 – 85 and 70 –300. I likethe small overlap of range in the middle. Both have image stabilization. I donot notice the effects of image stabilization in the short focal length lensthat much but I have just came back from shooting in the rainforests of Central Americawhere light was an issue on the forest floor.

I was pretty much using the 70 – 300 most of the time as animals were higherin the tree canopy. I found myself shooting regularly at ISO 800 with thewidest aperture and a shutter around a 30th of sec just to get a shot away - no tripod. The image stabilisationallowed me to hand hold up to 4 stops of light under the normal mantra.

So don’t discount the longer focal length but go for image stabilization togive you the greater flexibility.

[calstan49]

Hi Tom,

If it doesn't break your budget, ignore the 55-200, keep your 35-70 and go for the 70-300 VR. The image quality of the 70-300 VR is FAR better than that of the 55-200. There are non-VR versions of the 70-300 that you do not want. The D7000 is a DX format camera - the 35mm will be more of a "normal" lens on that body.

Hope this helps.
Cal
Windham, ME

[Tuck]

Thanks everyone for your help,

"the 35mm will be more of a "normal" lens on that body."
What do you mean by normal lense?

the 35-70 i have is an f3.3-4.5 af, not the 2.8

it looks to be about 500 more for the 70-300 from the 55-200 which may be a bit too much,
i found a 55-300 which is cheaper than the 70-300 whats anyones experience with this one?

Thanks all

[FrankMi]

What do you mean by normal lense?

Hi Tom,

Normal is relative but is generally considered to be angle of view that the human eye is confortable seeing, which is about 53° diagonally. Because we have two eyes we can perceive about a 140° angle of view but each eye can only focus on 1/2° angle at a time. We compensate for this very narrow field of view by having our eyes dart around while the brain stitches together what we focus on into a composite image. Although we only see color in the 1/2° angle of view (the rest of our vision only sees black and white), our brain remembers the colors we see as our eyes dart about so our perceived image is all in color and wider than the current area of focus. What the eye perceives as normal is the angle of view that the brain remembers at any given point in time.
1. For a 35mm (or Nikon FX) camera, a 45-50mm focal length lens is normal.
2. For an ASP C (or Nikon DX) camera, a 28-35mm focal length lens is normal.
3. For a typical Point & Shoot camera, a 15mm focal length lens is normal.
4. A lens that has a smaller than normal angle of view (longer focal length) for the camera is Telephoto.
5. A lens that has a larger angle of view (shorter focal length) than normal for the camera is Wide Angle.

[The Stig]

Yes, get the 70-300 VR. I used to have the 55-200 but sold it as it just wasn't as sharp as my other lenses. The 70-300 is superior in every way (maybe except portability).

[tclune]

Normal is relative but is generally considered to be angle of view that the human eye is confortable seeing, which is about 53° diagonally. Because we have two eyes we can perceive about a 140° angle of view

This is not accurate. In truth, it doesn't even make sense. How could you put two eyes with 53 degree view each together into a 140 degree field of view? As Wikipedia notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view) the human field of view approaches 180 degrees, with the central 120 degree or so binocular.

The thing that approximates human vision in a 50mm FX lens is the front-to-back perspective. That is, objects appear to get smaller at about the same rate as human vision as they move away from us. With a wide angle lens, objects appear to get smaller more rapidly than normal human perception, and with long focal distance lenses, object recede more slowly than human vision. FWIW