Best camcorder & camera lenses according to redditors

We found 6,163 Reddit comments discussing the best camcorder & camera lenses. We ranked the 1,157 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Camera lenses
Camera & camcorder lens bundles

Top Reddit comments about Camcorder & Camera Lenses:

u/structuralbiology · 109 pointsr/Tinder

For that blurred background look, you can get a prime lens on your dSLR. The cheap ones are great, and they make you look like a million bucks.

MIT actually did a study that confirms OP's hypothesis, by the way. It's not just that it's an interesting picture. The top 5% of men had more than double the success of the next top 5%. Researchers called this the superstar effect.

u/buttscratcha · 83 pointsr/itookapicture

Thanks! I shot it with the 50mm 1.8, at 2.2 and 1/200s exposure.

u/DorianTheHistorian · 77 pointsr/gifs

That's a $26,000 lens.

u/ThatGraemeGuy · 63 pointsr/todayilearned

So is the price tag.

EDIT: Yes ok, it's not that exact one. I should have added an aggressive pedant disclaimer. It's still not something the average enthusiast is going to buy, which was rather the point.

u/snerz · 60 pointsr/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG

Have you seen the Amazon reviews and customer photos on that thing?
Pretty funny

u/EpistemicFaithCrisis · 38 pointsr/photography

You're thinking exactly correctly. That's one of the reasons why Nikon has a (relatively) cheap 35mm f/1.8 prime for DX.

u/Angelofpity · 37 pointsr/funny
u/frostickle · 34 pointsr/photography

Hi Nooby_Scooby, there is an ongoing Question thread is here for small questions like this :) You might find it interesting to read and there will always be people answering questions in there.
As for your question, Why do you plan to buy a full frame body? You're spending more money now and carrying extra weight for the years until you upgrade to full frame.

I'm going to go against pretty much everyone in this thread and offer you this alternative advice :)

A lens like the 17-55mm f2.8 is actually an option you should consider if you're not upgrading very soon (i.e. next purchase or within the year).

Lenses like this have very good resale value especially if you buy them used. You would lose at most $100 from buying a new one and selling it in 2-3 years when you upgrade to full frame. If you buy used, and resell it, you probably won't lose any money and might even make money if you're a good haggler.

The 17-55mm f2.8 is about half the price and half the weight of the 24-70mm f2.8, and actually has a more normal focal length when on your camera. (Although some photographers might prefer to have a the longer focal length that the 24-70mm would have on a x1.6 crop)

u/Panzerx · 33 pointsr/Filmmakers
  • Canon T2i
  • Rode mic
  • 50mm lens
  • Tripod

    Dslr cameras are the best thing in a price range of $4000 or less. The canon t2i is lower end but has huge bang for buck. You really do want an external recorder for them. Dslr audio is horrible but that rode mic will really improve it, just not as much as external recording. The 50mm lens is the best starting point it is very cheap but looks great. You need a tripod for a dslr because they look horrible hand held unless you have a good stabilization rig or steady cam.
u/link_4_the_lazy · 30 pointsr/videos
u/xoNightshade · 23 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

The Book Thief DVD, camera case, and camera lens from her "Amazon Bomb Suggestions" list add up to just under £100!

u/webdeveric · 19 pointsr/photography

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II does a good job and is really cheap.

u/Grundwissen · 19 pointsr/de

Kostet sportliche 26k$.

u/odd_affilliate_link · 17 pointsr/photography

I would say you can't go wrong with a D7000 body paired with a 35mm 1.8. That's exactly your budget and the D7000 allows you to use pretty much any old Nikon lens you can find. If you want more lenses, scout Craigslist (I've found some extremely good deals there). Kit 18-55s can be had for dirt cheap, as well as the ubiquitous 50mm. Depending on what you want to shoot, your lens preference my vary, though the 35mm is pretty much all-around fantastic especially for the price.

Others might say to use more of the budget on the lenses and less on the body but I find the handling of the D7000 to be so far superior to the 'lesser' models that it would be worth it (to me). I like having 2 dials and an LCD on the top of the camera. In addition, a D7000 + 35mm 1.8 is not a large kit as DSLRs go, so if you don't want to carry around a huge chunk of gear, that is a factor.

Edit: D90 is another decent choice, but I feel that sensor tech (particularly high ISO quality) has advanced enough between the D90 and D7000 that the D7000 is a much better (though more expensive) choice.

u/iggyfenton · 16 pointsr/photography

Here are lenses I suggest: (I shoot Canon, but you can find these focal lengths and aperture in any brand.)

If you don't have a Nifty Fifty, get one today.

This is the cheapest lens you can buy and it's great. Easily the best buy in lenses.

For indoor closer photos: 85mm f1.8

I use this for basketball. It will help you freeze the action by having a faster shutter speed. I shoot canon and I find that the lens performs best at f2 not wide open at f1.8

You also need to buy a 70-200 f2.8

This is a real go-to lens for sports. I carry it on my side for everything I shoot and I use it as a primary for many sports as well.

If you want me to give you some tips on your composition and shooting let me know. I have some notes on these images that can make them better in the future.

u/charlesviper · 15 pointsr/photography

Sigma have been at it for a while. They realized they could make a lens that Canon/Nikon wouldn't want to make, and then sell it in just about every mount they could.

Mid-range primes are a great example. Nikon won't make them because they undercut the high-end stuff. Sigma are more than happy to put out a 150mm f/2.8, or a 30mm f/1.4 -- both of those lenses are like eight years old but really good.

Then they have the super high end stuff that Nikon or Canon just can't afford to make for one lens mount. Stuff like the 200-500mm f/2.8 that costs upwards of $25,000.

Even their "low quality" stuff is good. I have the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 and I love it, you're not going to get a lens like that from Nikon or Canon any time soon. It cost me $600 used.

Sigma have been putting out really interesting stuff for a while. The only true "budget" lens manufacturer these days are Tamron, they are putting out perfectly adequate products in the same focal length range as the big guys, only for cheaper. Sigma & Tokina have been innovating for a while.

u/odd_affiliate_link · 15 pointsr/photography

I suggest the D7000 - I really like mine. The ergonomics (aside from the ISO button placement) are fantastic, and it feels very well made. I had some lenses already, but if you nave no lenses, I would go with the kit w/18-105mm lens and add the excellent 35mm 1.8. Also keep a sharp eye out for used lenses on Craigslist - The D7000 can use pretty much any old Nikon lens.

I was given an old Quantaray Vivitar 70-210mm 3.5 that would not meter on a friend's D50 but works great on the D7000. It isn't the best lens, but it is very fun to play with and has a macro mode.

Regarding lenses, some people will tell you to skip the kit lens and just go with primes. I disagree. Primes are great, but for someone who is just starting out and getting a feel for a 'real' camera, a decent zoom is great. 18-105mm is a huge range, so it should give you an idea of what focal lengths you like after using it a bit.

Edit: Fixed lens manufacturer mentioned above.

u/TheMagicDrainpipe · 14 pointsr/photography

Getting a 100-400 f/2.8 or something similar would be crazy expensive and large. If you're willing to do the bicep curls and fork over the dough... I guess it can be yours.

u/mini-you · 13 pointsr/astrophotography

I'll do my best. I don't know many technical terms, and I'll likely be editing this as I remember more things, so beware. Also I'm including solutions to a lot of mistakes I made, so this is long:


  • Before you go, take a picture of a distant object (building, tree...whatever), and make a mental note about where the focus ring on your camera should be. For my 50mm lens, I need to have the focus ring rotated nearly all the way to the left. This will come in handy later. (

  • Download Stellarium ( and check to see what the sky will look like when/where you plan your shoot. Also make sure you understand which direction the stars will be drifting in. In N. California, at 9:30 at night, on Sept 18th, facing NE, Andromeda drifted upward and slightly to the left.

  • Next, you'll need a dark area. Use a light pollution map like I live near San Francisco, so I had to drive 90 miles to get to an area that was dark enough for decent pictures ("green" on the light maps).

  • Make a list of what you need to be sure about: Camera, set to RAW, charged battery, memory card, tripod, tripod head...

    Taking pics:

  • I setup my camera and tripod, and aim it towards the first star I see on my screen. However, if your camera isn't focused at least a little, the stars will be so blurry you can't find them. So it helps to know roughly where your focus needs to be (that's why we made that mental note about it earlier). Once you've found a star, adjust your focus as necessary and get it as pin-point sharp as you can.

  • Helpful: An android tablet or laptop. There are free DSLR apps that will give you a live view from your camera, instead of relying on your camera's tiny screen. REALLY helps with focusing and reviewing your images. You can often adjust the camera settings from them too.

  • Now that I'm setup and focused it's time to find Andromeda, so I aim my camera towards it. Problem: I don't know if I'm aimed directly at it, so I take a long exposure at a high ISO. This makes the galaxy much more obvious, so I can find it when I review my picture.

  • Because the earth rotates, the stars drift. Remember when we checked Stellarium, Andromeda was drifting upwards and slightly to the left. I try to aim the galaxy towards the bottom of my frame so as the galaxy moves across the sky, it moves from the bottom of my frame to the top and I don't constantly have to re-adjust my camera.

  • For the 50mm 1.8 lens ( Once you've got your aim and focus ready, check that you're taking pictures in RAW, set your exposure to 6 seconds, set your ISO to 1600. Longer lenses will need more light, and offer you shorter exposure times, but you'll get a larger view of the object.

  • I use a remote trigger, lock it in the "take pictures" position, and let the camera fire for 10-15 minutes. Then I check the most recent picture and make sure the galaxy is still in the frame. If it's not near the top of the frame, I keep going for a bit longer until the galaxy starts to get close to the opposite edge of the frame. (Remote:

  • If you need more pictures, re-adjust the camera and keep going. I shoot until I collect at least 500 shots.

  • Now that you have your pictures, you'll need dark frames. We'll use these later to correct errors the camera makes. Put the lens cap on, and with exactly the same exposure time, and the same ISO, take at least 20-30 shots. Don't wait too long, these frames work best if the camera's sensor is still hot from the previous shoots.

  • Now you need bias frames. Again, we'll use these to correct camera errors. Keep the lens cap on, and set your exposure time to the fastest your camera offers. For my T3i, that's 1/4000th of a second. Take 20-30 shots.


  • Helpful: When I load my pictures onto the computer, I make 3 folders "Light" "Dark" "Bias". Sometimes I'll find I have high ISO, high exposure "looking for the galaxy" pictures mixed in with my regular pictures. I find the easiest way to identify them is to view my pictures in Windows Explorer and select View - Details. This lists the pictures along with the date they were taken, file size, etc. I add Exposure Time, Focal Length, and ISO to the detail columns and now I can see exactly which pictures are throwaways. I put the pictures of the galaxy in the Light folder, Darks in the Dark folder, and Bias in the Bias folder.

  • Use Deep Sky Stacker, load your Light Frames, and click "Check All". Then load your dark frames, then your bias. These will check automatically. Then click Register Pictures.

  • Under Stacking Parameters, I use Mosaic Mode under "Result" and Kappa Sigma Clipping for the Light, Dark, and Bias frames. Click OK

  • Click Recommended Settings and click any link that's blue. This will automatically pick the best setting for you. Click OK and start stacking! This should take at least a couple hours from start to finish.

  • You'll end up with a picture of nearly NOTHING! But now when you brighten it up the stars and galaxy will emerge and you'll end up with FAR less noise. Deep Sky Stacker used those dark and bias frames to identify what in your pictures is just useless noise, and eliminated it. Deep Sky Stacker also has a very crude adjustment tool to brighten images, but you can use Gimp, Photoshop, Lightroom, or another image editor to really play with the brightness, levels, and curves to get the best image possible.

  • Helpful: If DSS goes through the whole process, and ends in an error, look through your pictures. Make sure the darks are all dark, the lights are all light, and delete frames that look funky (airplane flying through them or something). Maybe try stacking just the first 50, or the first around with it until you find out what's wrong.

    Did I leave anything out? Any questions?

u/testing78378 · 13 pointsr/gonewild

Here's the album.

If you like this, check out what else we've done.

A side note: a few people have asked about the camera I use; most of the pictures we've posted were shot with a used Canon t2i and a 50mm, $100 lens. The camera records at a maximum resolution of 18 megapixels, which generates large, detailed images, but I think they're worth the hard drive space.

u/TheLouisVuittonPawn · 12 pointsr/TeenMFA

Canon 50mm prime lens + a lens hood. Theyre supposed to arrive later today (:

E: Beaut

u/Michael_Pistono · 12 pointsr/photography

Do yourselve a favor and read the amazon reviews.

u/cubiccle · 11 pointsr/photography

That's a no-brainer. Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G. Boom.

u/revjeremyduncan · 11 pointsr/photography

I'm far from an expert, but I have a 7D, and I can tell you a few things to consider.

  • A 7D has a crop (APS-C) sensor, whereas the 5D has a Full Frame Sensor. The difference being that any lens you put on a 7D is going to be zoomed in by 1.6x compared to the 5D. See here. In other words, a 50mm lens on a 7D is going to act like an 80mm lens would on the 5D. Full frame sensors have a more shallow depth of field, too, which may or may no be desirable with video. Shallow DoF looks nice, but you really have to be precise when focusing.

  • Both the 7D and 5D have fixed LCD view screens. The 60D, which is like a cheaper version of the 7D, has a flip out screen, so you can see what you are filming when you are in front of the camera. An alternative would be using a laptop or tablet to as an eternal monitor. Honestly, if video was my focus, I would go with the 60D. 7D is better for still photography, though. Just my opinion.

  • The 7D, 5D and 60D do not have continuous focus for video, like what you are probably used to on a regular video camera. That means you have to manual focus with the focus rings on the lens, as you are filming. It gets easier with a lot of practice. The only Canon dSLR that I know of that has continuous focus on video is the Rebel T4i, which is quite a down grade from either of the previous. Also, the only lens that I know of that is compatible with continuous focus (so far) is the 40mm Pancake lens. That's a good, cheap lens to have in your arsenal, though.

  • The 5D does not have a built in flash, but that probably doesn't matter to you, if you are only doing video. Either way, I would get a speedlight if you need a flash. I have used my pop up in a pinch, though. All the other models I mentioned do have a flash.

  • Other people are likely to have different opinions, but some cheap starter lenses I would consider are; Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 (Nifty Fifty), Canon 40mm ƒ/2.8 (Pancake Lens), and Tamron 17-50mm ƒ/2.8 (great, fast lens for video for the price IMO).

    Again, I cannot stress enough, that I am not as experienced as many of the photographers in this subReddit, so if they have differing opinions, you may want to consider theirs over mine. I hope I could help a little, at least.

    EDIT: Changed the order of my comments.
u/ButtsexEurope · 11 pointsr/pics

Of course it's a Sigma lens. They make great telephoto lenses. Like this one.

u/HybridCamRev · 10 pointsr/videography

Hi /u/codyhart - I am a GH4 shooter. It is a great camera, but with a $3000 camera budget, I would buy a camcorder.

As you say, by the time you buy ND filters, a Speedbooster to compensate for the GH4's sensor size, an XLR audio solution with decent preamps and rigging (e.g., a top handle) to compensate for its ergonomics - you might as well buy a real video camera.

In your price range, I recommend a [$2499 like new Super 35 4K JVC LS300 from a JVC authorized dealer] ( with a [$238 Canon to micro 4/3 autofocusing adapter] ( and something like a [used $264.93 Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with a 30 day warranty from Cellular Stream via Amazon] (

The LS300 has these features the GH4 lacks:

u/papercraft_dildo · 10 pointsr/photography

I've taken perfectly capable shots with the Kit 18-55 lens that came with my old T3i. If you can swing it, you might want to spring for a 50mm 1.8 STM lens. They're dirt cheap, and take gorgeous pictures.

The zoom lens is made for versatility, not necessarily tack sharp pictures. That's why I like primes for portraits and things like that.

u/BrandanG · 9 pointsr/cars

I use Canon because I had access to Canon lenses when I first started shooting cars, but Nikon also makes great cameras.

Right now a Canon T6 with an 18-55mm lens is $450. Add a 50mm f/1.8 and you can have a lot of fun shooting cars.

u/VoyeurOfBliss · 9 pointsr/BreakingTheSeal

Tripod shot is Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 running a Sigma 350963 60mm F2.8 DN prime lens.

Handheld is Panasonic LUMIX GX85 with Lumix 25mm F1.7 prime lens.

I use fnord's WebM premiere plugin to export clips from the original film in WebM VP9. GFYCAT doesn't convert them so you are seeing full quality on your end.

u/AdamLynch · 9 pointsr/AskPhotography



Sigma makes two variants of this lens. You have posted eBay links for a Canon lens and a Nikon lens.

u/Hundekuchen_ · 9 pointsr/pcmasterrace

Thanks :3

Camera: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, aka 500d

Lens: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

The lens is mostly what gives this "depth of field" effect

u/measuredworkshop · 9 pointsr/DIY

Thank you so much! I seriously appreciate it!

I use a Lumix G7 with a 25mm lens. It may not seem like a cheap setup, but comparatively it's a bargain! A lot of people use a Canon DSLR for videography but god damn those are expensive. This does what I need and more, I can't recommend it enough!

I'm a slave to Adobe unfortunately, it's what I learned early on, so I used Premiere for video editing. I'd like to convert to something free, or at least not subscription based. Any suggestions?!

For gifs, "GIF Brewery 3" all the way!

u/EchoEchoEchoEchoEcho · 8 pointsr/nottheonion
u/strawcat · 8 pointsr/photography

Get yourself the nifty 50 so you can shoot in low light and the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson (in fact, I LOVE all of his books). Photoshop is pretty important to me as well, but I'd start there.

u/Shaka1277 · 8 pointsr/Nikon

The focal range of the 24-70 is designed for FX cameras with a larger sensor. This lens on your camera would have a FoV equivalent to a 36-105 mm lens, which I consider too narrow at the wide end for "general use"/"walkabout"

On the flipside, the 17-55 mm lens would have a FoV equivalent to about 25-72 mm, which you can see is very similar to the 24-70, showing that they're lenses intended to provide a similar FoV albeit on different sensor formats.

The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is crazy expensive, however. I've never used one, but the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 can be bad for $300 USD at a mere fraction of the cost. It's very highly regarded, so definitely check it out.

u/Isvara · 8 pointsr/photography

> Seriously. Just go shooting like hell, try all the modes to know what to use when that particular once-in-a-lifetime shot will come to your eyes.

Sounds like today will be an ideal day to take my kid to the park :-)

> If you have a few bucks left, get a nice prime. I think canon has a pretty fast normal lens that is very affordable.

By that, do you mean the $100 50mm one that people are saying is great value?

u/burning1rr · 8 pointsr/Nikon

The D3300 can absolutely take great depth of field (DOF) photographs, but it does help to have the right lens.

Here's something I happened to shoot on a hike. This was shot with a d5300, which has the same sensor and crop factor as your D3300. I used the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 prime lens, which is excellent for DOF work.

Here are some hints:

  • Use Aperture Priority mode (A). The wider your aperture, the shorter your depth of field.
  • Use the widest aperture possible^1. With the kit lenses this usually means f3.5-f5.5, depending on focal length.
  • Move closer to your subject (closer subject means shorter DOF)
  • Put more distance between your subject and the background (background will be more out of focus.)
  • If you want to shoot portraits at 55mm, use the 55-200 lens not the 18-55. The 55-200 is faster than the 18-55 at 55mm^2.

    A longer focal length will tend to reduce DOF, but with the kit lens zoom will reduce aperture. Longer focal length also means that you'll need to stand further away from the subject to get the framing correct. Distance increases DOF.

    Try using the kit 18-55mm lens at about 35mm and open the aperture wide. Move the subject away from the background. Chose a background with some texture that contrasts against your subject. Make sure the background is far behind the subject.

    If you want to take DOF shots, a faster lens helps immensely. For landscape and group photography, the Nikkor DX 35mm f1.8 lens is a great bet. For shooting portraits, consider the Nikkor FX 50mm f1.8 prime. Both cost $200, and are absolutely worth the price.

    I recommend the 50mm for portrait photos because the zoom helps move you away from your subject. A face/shoulder shot with the 35mm will tend to distort the subjects features. 80-100mm is generally considered a good distance for portrait photography, but the fast 100mm lenses are much more expensive than the 50mm prime.

    One other hint... Consider enabling Auto-ISO on your camera. Getting Auto-ISO right takes patience, but it makes shooting much easier once it's set correctly. Mine is tuned so that ISO stays at 100 normally, but increases to keep the shutter speed at a minimum of 1/50.

    ^1 This doesn't always apply to extremely fast lenses. The 35mm f1.8 has a razor thin depth of field wide open. I have taken many shots where there isn't enough DOF to capture the entire subject at that aperture.

    ^2 This advise has a major caveat: While the 55-200 is wider at 55, the minimum focus distance is much longer. You'll get a shorter depth of field and better bokah using the 18-55 at 1' and f5.6 than you will using the 55-200 at 3' and f4.
u/Stone_The_Rock · 8 pointsr/photography

If you stick with the T5i an 11-24 would be a "waste" of glass - hear me out. Part of the reason that lens is so massive is the amount of glass and witchcraft it takes to design an 11-24mm lens to cover a full frame sensor with a flange distance of 44mm. The crop sensor will not be able to make use of all that glass

You'll save a huge amount of money and weight by going with the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM - though it's variable aperture it's optimized for crop sensor cameras. It's definitely not as nice as the 11-24; however, it's 10% of the cost of the Canon 11-24! Check out some sample images, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the performance.

Disclaimer, I'm a 5D4 shooter and I love it - so it's hard to advocate against going full-frame with a great piece of glass like the 24-70!

u/TheSummerTriangle · 7 pointsr/Nikon

You definitely want this 35mm 1.8 DX. It's a steal of a lens, and often the only lens I bring with me on my DX bodies.

Sports is the hardest thing to shoot cheaply, especially if it's indoors/at night. VR won't help you there -- it doesn't un-blur moving objects, it only prevents blurring from the camera shaking in your hands. Your best bet is most likely the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.

As for bags, I generally shoot out of a random backpack or shoulder bag. You can get a specialized camera bag if you want to, but I've found them to be overkill for me.

u/Vpr99 · 7 pointsr/buildapc

I've got a Nikon D3100. It's not crazy nice, but then again I don't make enough money off my photography (or use it enough) to merit a better one. I do have two other lenses, though. I've got a Nikon 18-200 f/3.5 - 5.6 which just sits in my camera bag about 90% of the time and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 that I used to take these photos. I got it as a vacation and low-light lens and I've absolutely fallen in love with it. I chose it cause it's a bit wider than the 50mm f/1.8 which was my other choice. I've honestly been considering selling the 18-200 since it was expensive and barely gets used. The 35 is the deal of the century as far as I'm concerned with lenses.

u/dutchbag · 7 pointsr/photography

I cannot recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 enough. It's pretty much permanently mated to my most used body (the older bro of the D3k, the D40x).

u/fatherjokes · 7 pointsr/photomarket

It's $110 on Amazon. Can't beat that with a stick.

If that's too much, check out the Yongnuo f1.8. I picked one up on eBay for $40. Amazing value. It takes great photos.

u/memorable_zebra · 7 pointsr/M43

The kit lens is good because it can zoom across a wide range of perspectives but bad because it's "slow" in light gathering terms. This means that you'll be less able to get non-blurry shots as the lights get dimmer (sun set, indoors, dinner time lighting, etc).

So my suggestion would be to, assuming you want to take photos at dusk/night, get a fixed focal length prime lens. These lenses are bad because they can't zoom at all and so you have to use your feet to zoom but good because they can shoot in significantly dimmer light.

But which prime lens to get? You can get them at a reasonable price in the zoom levels of: 15mm, 17mm, 20mm, 25mm, and 42.5mm. I'd say the way to go would be to buy the G85 with the kit lens, use it, and see which focal length you take the most photos at or your favorite photos at. Some people suggest taping the zoom lens to be fixed at a focal length of whatever prime lens you might buy and shooting with that for a week or so to see if you can handle being stuck at that range.

u/14likd1 · 7 pointsr/M43

Probably not going to be a super popular opinion but somebody already recommended the GX85 so I'm going to go with a different camera. Assuming that the 500 pound budget is including a body and a lens getting something like a refurbished em10 mkII is pretty nice. Sure it's not the best camera as it doesn't have an articulating screen very limited video support, which the MKIII "solves", and no 4k. But the camera is going to go for $200-350 refurbished, the MkII is a beast of a camera at that price with Olympus's famous 5 axis in body stabilization. This also giving you enough money to buy a very cheap but good prime lens such as the Panasonic 25mm 1.7

u/jonjiv · 7 pointsr/personalfinance

This is highly dependent on your price range, but if you're going to be in it for $500 prizes, I'm going to assume you'd like to spend less than $1000.

In that case, you can't really go wrong with a Canon dSLR, especially the t series, their entry level camera. I think the newest version is the Canon t5i, but the t4i and t3i also shoot high quality 1080p video and you'll be able to find them for cheaper.

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is increasingly popular in that price range, but I wouldn't recommend it to an amateur. It has a fantastic image but a high learning curve.

Nikon dSLR's are great too, but if you invest in Nikon lenses as a videographer, you're going to have a bad time. The majority of video camera bodies are manufactured for Canon mount lenses, so if you ever want to leave Nikon, you're kind of stuck or forced to use lens mount convertors.

With all of these cameras, lenses are arguably more important than the camera itself. With the Canon, the best bang for your buck is going to be a Canon 50mm 1.8. It's a cheap lens, but it has a great image for the price and is great in low light. If you can afford a good 2.8 zoom lens like the 17-55 2.8, go for it, but it's often near $1000.

u/bolanrox · 7 pointsr/Nikon

you dont want super zooms theres a huge trade off with sharpness vs range.

You have to look for AF-s or AF-p on the lens to see if it has the motor built in to AF. Nikon lenses will also note DX for crop sensors, not to mention the huge price diffrence for FF glass.

  • This one does

    and this one doesn't

    Also if you want a complete replacement for the kit lens the Nikkor 18-140 f/3.5 is fantastic. Its our go to walking lens. Will give you more than enough reach IMO for anything short of wildlife shots in normal use. That's what we used for the egg hunts yesterday. I have seen it go for $300 recently but it is usually $500 or so. I can honestly leave it on our body 99% of the time.

    The bulk of my IG page is that lens unless noted if you want some real world examples
u/strack94 · 7 pointsr/canon


Simple cheap and good all around focal length that will challenge you to move closer to your subject.

EDIT: Alternatively, you can go wide angle for a little bit more with the 24mm

u/BrainSlurper · 7 pointsr/photography

>I would suggest giving the 50mm a try

That is not a good idea. You don't want the largest aperture, you want a fast wide lens. When you put on a closer lens like the 50mm you then have to cut your shutter speed down to keep the stars from trailing, so in effect you aren't doing much better than you would be at 18mm, and you have a worse picture as a result because you are capturing less of the milky way.

Here are some good cheap lenses well suited to this

u/finaleclipse · 6 pointsr/photography

A camera in the same family would be one of the D7000-series cameras (D7000, D7100, D7200).

> She also wants a zoom lens with larger aperture and VR.

A common (affordable) suggestion for that would be the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Good zooms with large apertures tend to be pretty expensive, it might be a good idea to consider a prime or two instead which will be much more affordable.

u/Fracturedlens · 6 pointsr/photography

I have been shooting on Nikon for a while now. The D7000 is a solid camera. Going from my old D80 to the D7000 it was like stepping into the future. The full RGB meter and the 6400 ISO range make for some amazing shots.

Now as for lens that largely depends on your budget.

  • The standard starter 50mm f/1.8 $219.00

    The 50mm will give you razor sharp images work in low light and is a great lens to learn on. If you ever move to a FX (full frame) camera is will work on there as well. On your crop camera it will be 50mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 75mm lens. This is a little long for some folks which leads to our next lens.

  • Great starter just for DX Cameras 35mm f/1.8 $196.95

    The 35 is a DX lens (build just for your crop camera so it won't work well on a FX camera) but its a great place to start. This lens is a "normal" lens. Meaning it is close to what your eye sees. Its cheap and has many of the qualities of the 50mm.

  • If you have some money to burn the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $594.00

    I just picked up this Sigma a few days ago from Amazon and I can confirm its sharp as a tack. I honestly like this lens better than the 17-55 Nikon which is 1500 ish dollars. It has optical stabilization and is lighter than the hulking Nikon lens.

    I have stayed away from lenses with, in my opinion, crappy f-stops. You can find cheaper lens out there but you will suffer from high f stops like 5.6 which will kill your ability to shoot in low light, and to isolate your subject and have real control over your depth of field. These lenses are great place to start and they will stay in your camera bag for years to come. There are more lenses out there from zooms to telephoto to macro if you give us some idea of what you want to shoot then we can help recommend a more specialized lens. Happy shooting.
u/-Slugtastic- · 6 pointsr/EarthPorn

For those looking to try this, the cheapest lens that'll give you solid photos would likely be this one: Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Lens for Canon (Black) - Fixed

If you don't need a wide angle and are ok either stitching multiple photos or getting small shots, there are plenty of 50mm 1.4s that will give beautiful, albeit small framed, shots.

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/photography

try a rokinon. theyre a manufacturer than makes a bunch of manual focus lenses that are great quality and perform very well for DIRT CHEAP.

$340 for a 14mm 2.8:

plus you dont really need af for wide angles anyways because you (at least i do) focus at infinity for most things i shoot with a wide or at small apertures

u/johnny5ive · 6 pointsr/photography

Yes!!! I'm in this thread early so i'm just gonna dump my questions. For reference I'm shooting with a D7100 (I blame DatAperture for owning that instead of a D7000)

  1. Do you all know exactly what combo of shutter speed / aperture / ISO you need to get a picture exposed correctly or are you just doing guess-and-check? I know the general relation between all 3 and how it determines exposure but I rarely get it right on the first or second try. Do you all have warm up shots or do you just nail exposure the first time?

  2. Debating a yongnuo flash for my indoor events. How important is TTL?

  3. Shooting a friends rehearsal dinner (she doesn't want anything crazy she just wants pictures to remember the night by). I'm not too nervous because I've had tons of practice and can turn out pretty good photos (thank you lightroom!) but i'm wondergin if a Sigma 18-35/1.8 will be all I need for the night. Should i get a nifty fifty to go with? Should I look into renting a 24-70 for the night or will I be ok just having the other two?

  4. I have a D7100, Can I save $100 and get the 50mm 1.8D or is the 50mm 1.8G that much better? Would I be missing out on that much?

  5. As a hobbyist would I be missing out if i bought a zoom a f2.8 or is f/4 enough? Is that extra stop really worth it if i'm mostly using it for friends/family/vacation? I know it really depends on the lighting and how many shots i'm ok with missing but i'd like to hear if there's anyone that regrets getting a lens at f/4 instead of f/2.8

    Thank you for your help. Here's a picture I took of my dog as thanks for your comments. Taken at 1/25, f/2.5, ISO 3200.
u/NHarvey3DK · 6 pointsr/M43

I'm sooooo happy with my G85. I've taken it around the world. Here's a list of things I've been keeping track of:


Get the Videomic Pro+. The differences are that the mic turns on/off automatically and it has a usb rechargeable battery.

Having to carry extra batteries are dumb. Especially when they're not rechargeable. Also, you WILL forget to turn the mic on, then your whole shot is ruined because NO SOUND will be recorded. Trust me.
You probably noticed that you can't look in the viewfinder because of the videomic. This Movo 4" bar will fix that.


Speaking of extra batteries, you're going to want more. There are two types: cheap non-decoded, cheap decoded, and OEM.

Non-decoded means you won't know how much battery you have left in the camera. Obviously that's dumb. Spend a little more and get decoded. I really like these OAproda 2 pack + charger. No battery lasts as long as the OEM, but it's close enough. Plus, the OAproda charger is much thinner than the others and charges via USB.

SD Cards:

I love these SanDisk Extreme Pro. I purchased the 128gb because I NEVER want to be in a position that I can ever possibly run out of space.

You'll want a way to copy the files to your pc. This Transcend USB 3.0 works amazingly, and it's $9 for a two pack.


The kit lens is pretty damn good. But here are the lenses that you'll see people talk about all the time. Depending how new you are in photography/videography, you should know this: we have a crop sensor. It's not the end of the world. A majority of the people don't mind it. But when you're looking at lens sizes, you need to double the number in order to compare it with full frame camera's. But again, not a big deal.

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 - compared to the "nifty fifty" on a full frame (25mm*2=50mm). This lens works aaaaaaamazing in low light / day light / etc. But to get an idea of how 'zoomed in' it is, take your kit lens and rotate it to "25mm". That's how this lens is. Nevertheless, still such an awesome lens.

Panasonic 45-150mm f4.0-5.6 - I just bought this lens from Amazon Warehouse for $100. It's very well built and serves it's purpose (when I want to zoom in on something far away)

Rokinon 12mm f2.0 - Everyone loves this lens, but keep in mind that it does not have autofocus. Is it the worst thing in the world? No. But it's the only drawback so it's worth mentioning. I was doing some night time time lapses last night and man, this sucker was beautiful. It's WIDER than any other lens, so you'll capture more of the image but it DOES NOT have a fisheye effect (which is awesome).

DSLR Video Shooter's G85 guide was wellllll worth the $20. Most of it was pretty elementary, but I did learn so much more and started using about 90% of what he spoke about. Brilliant.

u/geekandwife · 6 pointsr/photography

For a D3300, I would not want a 85mm at my "do everything" lens. I would have gone with a 35mm. If you are reading guides that talk about portrait shooting with and 85mm prime, they are talking about on a full frame camera. A 50mm will be the equivalent of a 85mm on your D3300. If that is what you are really looking for I would get the , And I would keep the 35mm as your equivalent to a "nifty" fifty. It will be your general walk around lens. However, you could always return what you got wrong, and get the cheaper 35mm 1.8 - . I would much rather have a 50mm and a 35mm prime than one 85mm prime, especially since I could get both cheaper than the one lens.

u/Specken_zee_Doitch · 6 pointsr/videography

Canon 24mm 2.8 STM is only $150, turns into a 35mm equivalent focal length lens, small and cheap, great for indoor natural light and handheld.

u/Razalas · 6 pointsr/photography

The T2i is an excellent camera, I bought mine shortly after it was released and I still love it.

The image quality is on par with a 7D or 60D but it's much cheaper. The auto-focus system isn't on par with pro-level cameras and it has a mediocre continuous shooting frame rate, but that shouldn't be a deal breaker. I've used my camera to shoot college sports (baseball and basketball), wildlife, landscapes, portraits, etc. and it has always proved to be a capable camera. If you get it, I would suggest getting a vertical grip and then saving up for some nice glass.

While the kit lens is fairly capable for outdoor shooting, you might eventually consider upgrading it to Tamron's 17-50mm lens or Canon's 17-55mm lens.

u/m00f · 6 pointsr/MLS

It's fucking annoying and stupid.

I have got warned at Warriors games for my 300mm zoom lens and was told to put it away. It certainly is not a "professional lens" but it looks that way to the ushers. Their guideline at Oracle was "a lens longer than 3 inches". WTF?

And, at the open practice for the USMNT at Candlestick I was told I could not bring in that 300mm lens at all and had to take it back to my car. "NFL stadium rules" they said. So far at Buck Shaw it hasn't been an issue. I didn't even try to test the waters at the game at Levi... I brought a smaller 55-200 zoom and they didn't say anything.

u/Consolol · 6 pointsr/photography

A 70-200 is long to someone who doesn't see superteles on a regular basis.

I've had comments like "wow, that's a nice camera" and I've been called "guy with the long lens (it was just a 70-300 with a hood)."

u/mrallen86 · 6 pointsr/photography

Camera/Lenses with that sharp of an image have to be a model's worst nightmare. Every single blemish and flaw taken from hundreds of feet away can be blown up and put on display for the world to see. Also, not that I really expected any different, but holy shit that's expensive.

u/Stompya · 6 pointsr/photography

Was posted elsewhere recently; but if you haven't seen them, the reviews on this product are hilarious:

u/yuckytown · 6 pointsr/photography

serious bang for the buck - currently $105 (USD) at Amazon.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens

u/ubiquitousness · 6 pointsr/AskReddit
u/DontNoodles · 5 pointsr/india

I had posted this in a similar thread a week or so ago. Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V:

I am sure there are some amazing photographers in our midst, but I am not sure how many of them will see this post and reply. So, I will give it my go. Disclaimer: These are my views only.

I will reiterate something that you must have glazed over countless times while doing research in your quest for a DSLR. Just having a good camera/lens will not get you amazing photos. A lot of it is in the eye, but that is what not I am stressing upon too. With any gear, you need to experiment with its functionalities. I live in a city that is teeming with tourists most of the year. Most of them have cameras that look like they'd sprain their necks. But when I look closely, I see many of them shooting in auto mode. If you are going to be that guy, then refrain from spending so much.

That said, my apologies if you do not fall in the above category and are willing to experiment and understand the 'Manual' mode. Now, get some things straight:

  1. Kit lenses are mostly not-so-awesome. So, it is better if you buy Camera 'Body Only' and choose lenses separately.
  2. Choosing Nikon or Canon is totally your choice. Both make amazing cameras. One thing you might want to consider is the brand your friends have. This gives you a choice of borrowing lenses.
  3. Unless you are into specific kind of photography viz. Sports, Macro, Low Light, you just need a basic walkaround lens to begin with. And maybe one to shoot nice portraits with.
  4. My experience of third party lenses is that they are not so bad, and in most cases really good - while being a lot cheaper.

    I am a Canon 550D guy and nearly 4 years after it's purchase I am rarely tempted to upgrade. I have shot with more expensive cameras too, and beyond doubt they are awesome... but the kind of jump that you make from a basic P&S to a camera like 600D, you should not expect from 600D to say 60D, even though the price almost doubles.

    So, looking at your budget I'd suggest you go for Canon 600D with 18-55 kit lens (I'm amazed it is this cheap, even the 'Body only' price on Amazon is higher) or Canon 600D with 18-135. Do get the 50 mm Prime lens for sure. You'll be glad you got it.

    Another thing I would like to tell you from my (not that vast) experience set is that lighting makes world of a difference in photography. So if you are going to be serious about it, try and invest in a decent flash soon. By decent, I mean a flash whose head can be tilted for bouncing the light around, and one that can enable you to use it 'off the camera'.

    Whateve comes, do not get intimidated. The best camera is the one that you have in your hand when you are about to capture a precious moment. Happy shooting!
u/ezraekman · 5 pointsr/photography

For your purposes, a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably your best bet. That said, they aren't cheap. Used, older models can go for as low as $600-800 if you're lucky, but make sure it works before you pay for it. Test it THOROUGHLY, make sure it has no mold, scratches, or other obvious defects, make sure autofocus is fast and smooth even (especially) in low light, and make sure the aperture isn't sticky (resulting in over/underexposure) when shooting at high frame rates. Buying used can be risky, so be sure if you do.

If cost is an issue, go with a prime. It is not the same experience as shooting with a zoom, but they're cheaper and, when compared to the after-market brands or older branded zooms, are usually of superior quality and sharpness. (Newer branded zooms are much better quality, but as you've noticed, are much more expensive. This will, to a certain extent, depend on your camera body. I swear by my 50mm f/1.4, but that probably isn't going to be long enough for your needs, even on a cropped sensor (making it an effective 75mm f/1.4). A fixed focal length will be a pain in the ass when trying to follow fast-moving subjects around, particularly if you're stationary in the stands or on the sidelines, but it can be done.

Another factor to consider when thinking about fast primes is that their smallest aperture isn't always that small. For example: the 50mm f/1.4 can only stop down to f/16. Why is that a bad thing? Well, for one, it means you might have to shoot at a much faster shutter speed under bright lights/sunlight, which might not be what you want if you're trying to show action by allowing a small amount of motion blur by shooting at 1/30 to 1/60 of a second. This is mostly a non-issue indoors or out of direct sunlight, but is worth considering.

Personally, I love my 50mm f/1.4 - it's my most frequently used lens at the moment... depending on the type of event I'm shooting. I used it about 1/3 of the time while shooting some dancers at SF City Hall last week (1/3 was a 24mm f/2.8 and 1/3 was a 70-200 f/2.8, because I could move around), and the low light made me glad I brought it. It is invaluable for live performances, and makes stage lighting look like a studio portrait. I used my 50mm about 60-75% of the time for both of those shoots. It's also good for general portraiture, either medium or close-up. The 50mm barely left camera body for those two shoots. Most of these shots were on a D700, which is a full-frame sensor. I'm guessing yours is a cropped frame, which means the 50mm becomes a 75mm, at which point you might actually have a decent lens for medium and wide shots when at the sidelines. It probably won't be tight enough if you're in bleachers, though. And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to zoom in and out without having to move around is going to make things a LOT easier.

But a 70-200 f/2.8 will run you close to $1,000 used, whereas you can find a 50mm f/1.4 on Craig's List in decent shape for $200-250 fairly regularly. It'll cost you $450 on for the AF-S version, $350 for the SF-D version (slightly slower & louder focusing), or $125 for the AF-D f/1.8 version if you don't mind losing a half-stop of light. $429 will get you the 85mm f/1.8, which also loses the half-stop of light but is a tighter shot and is still fairly fast. You can reasonably expect to find this lens used for about $100-150 less than it's new price, in decent shape.

Insofar as after-market vs. Nikon-branded lenses are concerned, I have never owned an after-market lens that did not develop some kind of problem after 1-2 years of regular use, and I've owned a few of them. Sigma/Quantaray sucks for longevity; I've had to send one of their EX (pro) line back twice, and it still has some of the same problems. Tamron is okay, depending on which version you get... and it seems that some lenses come off the assembly line in good shape while others don't. Tokina seems to get good reviews, but also seems to be more limited in specs. Most of the other after-market brands aren't even worth mentioning. On the flip side, I own Nikon lenses that have been dropped onto cement, smashed into the ground lens-first when knocked over on a tripod, smacked and beaten, which work just as well now as they did when I bought them. The primes are built like tanks. The pro zooms are as well, though much more expensive. The more plasticky prosumer or kit lenses aren't, but still seem to develop fewer problems than after-market lenses. Another thing about after-market lenses: their autofocus is usually slow, and they frequently hunt for focus (focusing in and out, unable to lock) in low light. Pro AF-S will be your best bet for this, but is expensive. AF-D is usually good for sharp, accurate autofocus, but is slower than both pro and consumer AF-S.

I've been shooting for ten years and won't buy another after-market lens if I have a choice for all of these reasons. Yes, I get paid for my work and thus tend to spend more money on my gear than the average amateur, but for me, photography is more like a hobby that occasionally pays for itself than a business; I have a career that's completely separate. As a result, I have many of the same concerns about spending over a thousand dollars on a lens. However, I also know I'll get tons of use out of it over the years. I shoot, on average, 1-4 events per week (work allowing, of course), and many of my events put my gear at risk due to rowdy crowds, so I need that beefier build quality. Much of this may not be as true for you, so bear that in mind when making your decision.

Hope that helps!

u/thatlonelyasianguy · 5 pointsr/Nikon

Before I jump in to try and provide you with an answer, I want to verify the information that you gave in your posting to make sure that we're on the same page. Some quick google-fu tells me that you have the following already, which I'm hoping you can confirm.

>DX 0.2m

I'm assuming that this is the Nikon 40mm f/2.8

>DX 1.1m

I'm also assuming that this is the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6

I'm also guessing that he has a D3300 and not a D330 (I don't think there is one, other redditors correct me if I'm wrong please) because his current kit of lenses is comprised of DX lenses. I'd like to make a couple lenses recommendations (lenses that I think are great for any kit) based on the above information.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (Manual focus only on the D3300 since it doesn't have an internal focus motor)

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Both of those lenses will be alright for event and outdoor photography (although having to juggle primes all the time can be a bit of a pain and the 55-200 he already has is probably better for wildlife) but each will clock in under $200, giving you some extra cash to spare if you decide to pick up a UV filter for both of those lenses - they both use 52mm threaded filters. The only thing I can see is that both of those lenses fall somewhat within the same focal distance as the 40mm f/2.8, so the only other thing I can think of is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G if one didn't come with the camera body when he bought it. That can be had for under $200 and would be helpful as an everyday walk-around lens instead of having to lug around different primes.

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

I hope this is helpful!

*Edited for formatting.

u/coheedcollapse · 5 pointsr/IAmA

I'm a complete moron when it comes to Canon since I grew up using Nikon, but I'd say whatever you do start with a lower-end digital SLR (probably used unless you have a lot of money to spend) and a 50mm lens.

Some of the best shots that I've ever gotten with my camera have been shot through a 50mm 1.8 lens that I bought for $100 back when I first picked up an SLR.

The reason I feel that the 50mm lens is so important is because it sort of hits a trifecta of stuff that I find incredibly important in photography - especially when beginning.

A) It can produce tack sharp images with a very small initial investment. The photos that this lens can produce often looks better than some of the stuff that I crank out using lenses 10x its price.

B) The 1.8 aperture allows the photographer to shoot in very low light, which is great if you're shooting on a cheaper SLR since many of them can't handle bumping up the ISO much (and even on more expensive SLRs it's much better to stay low).

C) The fact that you can't zoom in and out with the lens really gets you thinking about composition when you shoot. Instead of twisting a ring, you're literally walking back and forth to get the composition you like. It's very rewarding.

Here's the lens I'm talking about:

Second tip is don't fall into fads. Experimentation is great with photography, but the most important thing as a photographer to do (in my opinion) is to capture reality in an interesting way BEFORE bringing it into your computer and without relying on gimmicks. Overdone HDR, toy cameras, grunge filters - they can all be fun when done in moderation, but when you start forgetting about composition, light, and everything else because you know you can just rely on a plastic camera or Photomatix to fix up your photo, you're getting lost.

Ok, crazy tangent done, third tip - bring your camera everywhere. Shoot everything. The weirdest thing that I've noticed is that some people who have taken years of photography school still can't do crap without any real world experience. As you shoot, you'll start getting better. Seek out honest critiques online and hone your skills accordingly.

Fourth - learn the basics. Don't shoot in programmed or automatic - shoot in manual, aperture, or shutter mode - finding out how changing the aperture and shutter speed changes the final photo that you get is literally the most important thing that you can learn.

There is just so much I can say to a beginning photographer. It's really hard to stop at three. I'll try to add more if I can think of a way to do it without babbling forever.


  1. Cheap camera, 50mm lens.
  2. Skip HDR, Lomo, crazy photoshop until you know the basics
  3. Take your camera everywhere
  4. Learn aperture, shutter speed
u/Emily89 · 5 pointsr/photography

After a quick research I would say: yes, this one.

However, whatever you do, you should take a lens with fixed focal length. They offer much better sharpness and higher quality in general, also they usually have bigger apertures which is good for depth of field effects.

You might also consider taking a Nikon 50 mm which is really cheap but has awesome quality (I have it and I love it) and use it with extension tubes. Those cost around 80-100$ I think (look for some that support auto focus).

u/mathematical · 5 pointsr/photography

Ah. The good ol' Rebel XT. I started with that camera, so I know for a fact it's got sucky low-light performance (a super grainy max of ISO800). You will probably need to start thinking about a camera upgrade to something that can do slightly better low-light shooting. Also, maybe invest in a "nifty fifty" (I linked a new one, but you can easily buy used), because those lenses rock in low light scenarios.

u/wordsarelouder · 5 pointsr/photocritique

I have the same camera and lens and I agree with the other commenter - Do yourself a favor and start reading/watching video - check out youtube for tutorials on how to take pictures and what all the settings mean and once you get into using manual made you can make this 100% better. Trust, me I was literally in the same boat as you, I have the t3i and the kit lens to start. If you really want to take good pictures or care about editing them in post then you should look at RAW vs JPEG - I started shooting RAW and haven't EVER looked back but I want that flexibility you might not need it.

So the focus on your girl is great, the rest of the photo was blurred due to movement. But movement wasn't really your issue - low light is what killed you here. Also, White Balance, you need to make this one colder, see how everything is a bit yellow? It's just a color balance issue that can be slightly corrected.

Since this will come up soon - If you want to make any upgrade purchases start with a 50mm prime

u/ballots_stones · 5 pointsr/photography

Learn how to adapt in low-light. I have an XS (getting a T3i soon), and the XS just doesn't have good low-light performance. That's pretty understandable though, it was $500.

  • Don't put the ISO above 800. At 1600, it's obnoxiously noisy.
  • Keep a steady hand. Having IS is great, but you have to keep steady.

    And for anything else I can think of.

  • Keep the white balance on auto, shoot in Raw mode. It can always be adjusted in Lightroom/GIMP/etc.
  • Don't shoot in auto! Keep it in Aperture priority (Av), and keep the aperture at about f/7.1 in normal lighting to get the lens at it's sharpest. Obviously you'd want a wider aperture (lower number) for certain situations (shallower depth of field)

    Last but not least, get this lens! It's the best $100 you'll spend.
u/filya · 5 pointsr/astrophotography

My current equipment :

  1. Camera : Canon T3i
  2. Lenses : Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 55-250mm f/4.0-f/5.6
  3. Tripod : Proline Dolica
  4. Software : Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 6

    Using these, I manage to get these : Album

    I want to further my astrophotography, but realize I would need better equipment to better these.

    Which of these would be best bang for my buck for a step forward with astrophotography?

  5. A tracker : Ioptron SkyTracker OR Vixen Polarie
  6. A good solid tripod and ball head
  7. PixInsight software (Is there a cheap or free alternative to a $250 software? I tried DSS, but found it to be inconsistent with results)

    I know a good answer to this would be 'everything', but I can't get myself to spend a lot of $$ at this moment. I could spend a few hundred on one of these, and then at a later point re-evaluate.

    Thanks for hooking me into this awesome hobby!
u/TyrannosaurusSloth · 5 pointsr/photography

the 85mm might be a bit to long for portraits on crop. I would suggest a 50mm canon or I guess the yongnuo just came out.

u/IronColumn · 5 pointsr/bicycling

That's just regular depth of field, not tilt shift. Probably using a thrifty fifty or similar

u/sirmatrick · 5 pointsr/Cameras

Get the 50mm f/1.8 lens. It is a great all-purpose lens, especially for portraits. Even a used one is a great deal.

u/jcitme · 5 pointsr/photography

> So far the advice from everyone I have spoken to has been to get a cheap body and spend more money on lenses. Is this the correct approach for a newbie?


>I am thinking that I will pick up a canon 550d second hand if possible. How would this fare as an entry level camera?

Pretty good. Anything from the Canon 550D to the 700D would be a good pick, they're all pretty similar.

>Which lenses should I look at? The main types of photographs I'll be taking will be of people at parties and of scenery when out and about.

Get the camera without a lens, as the lens that normally comes with the camera sucks. Buy a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens, and the Canon nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. For the 17-50, the best option would be either the Tamron or the Sigma version, the latter costs more but is faster and better autofocus. Then get the 50mm prime.

u/JumboChimp · 5 pointsr/M43

I went with the Panasonic 20 because I prefer a slightly wider FOV than 'normal' and wanted a more compact lens, but that's subjective. In any case, I like the lens. Not a great choice for action, not a great choice for video unless you have an external mic, but sharp.

If you prefer 25mm, consider the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 as well. I've never used it, but it's supposed to be good and frequently drops to $150 on Amazon., though it's currently $250.

u/masondaugherty · 5 pointsr/videography

I know it's been stereotypical to jerk off to the Panasonic G7, but after using it for two years as both a dedicated video and photo camera I've became extremely comfortable using it and can vouch for its superiority. This is the first camera I recommend to family and friends, and at $500 nothing can compare to it.

I'd recommend with the spare cash picking up the 25mm f1.7, its fabulous for the price and produces some amazing results.

Heres my website if you want to check out what I've done with the camera.

u/Tenchiro · 5 pointsr/photography

I was in the same boat and went with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and it ended up replacing the 50mm f/1.8. I felt too cramped with the 50 on a crop sensor so I like having a wider option.

The new Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake is another interesting option for not a lot of money.

u/1Maple · 5 pointsr/photography

I hear a lot of good things about the sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. It's pretty inexpensive and much better quality.

u/scienceblowsmymind · 5 pointsr/Nikon

Yeah, this is what I'm considering too - what's best to learn on.

How do you figure out what is newer - is this the one you mean?

u/ChocolateWatch · 5 pointsr/photography

Sigma 17-50 2.8

Tamron 17-50 2.8

These are your standard options for that budget. Both have compromises. I went back and forth, umming and aahing over which to get. The Sigma is good but you can be unlucky on build quality. The Tamron is good but the AF is slow and noisy. The Sigma is sharp between A and B but sucks at C, the Tamron is sharp between X and Y but sucks at Z. And so on and so on. Neither of them will give you the sharpness of the 35mm 1.8 throughout their zoom range.

But the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART will. It's out of your budget new, but I bought it mint-condition second hand for £400 - so you might find one closer to your budget that way. It is one of Sigma's new 'Global Vision' lenses, which is marketing speak for 'we've pulled our finger out in terms of build quality, sorry about that'. It is astonishingly sharp right across the zoom range, even wide open at 1.8: yes, as sharp if not sharper than the 35mm. The AF is fast, silent, and (in my experience anyway) accurate. It is built like a tank. It has FTMF. It looks the dog's.

The drawbacks are: it doesn't have the reach of a 17-50, obviously. In the end, I decided I didn't care: I used the Nikon 35mm 1.8 almost exclusively for 2 years and didn't really feel the need for a longer lens the entire time. Admittedly I don't take many portraits, but when I do I just shoot 3/4 length. As someone who leans towards landscape photography, I was more interested in the wide end. It's quite big as far as standard zooms go, and quite heavy, but I'm a grown up, I can handle it. The image quality more than makes up for it, and on my D7000 with a grip it actually balances perfectly.

^Yeah, ^I ^went ^there ^dasazz

u/wanakoworks · 5 pointsr/canon

This is understandable because 50mm on an APSC camera is actually about 80mm, which is short-telephoto portrait lens territory. 24mm, 28mm 30mm and 35mm, is the golden focal ranges on APSC for general use, imo.

I personally shoot much more prime lenses and can fully recommend a Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM. This lens is equivalent to 56mm on APSC, and when I had it on my 80D, it was the perfect lens for me, for taking pics of the baby and capturing the environment. It has very fast AF, it's built quite well and has great image quality.

If you want something a bit wider, another excellent prime for APSC is the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM, "the pancake". Damn what a great lens this is for the price! Also highly-recommended. I owned this one as well and the only reason it wasn't my always-on lens is because the 35mm was more useful for my style. Great image quality, quick and quiet AF, and very low-profile and lightweight. It's a great complimentary lens to the SL2.

I've heard many good things about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as well, but cannot provide any personal feedback on that one.

For zoom, I can recommend the Sigma 17-55 2.8. I've used it for a short while and it was a fantastic lens for the price. Light, fast aperture, and inexpensive.

The Sigma 18-35 is a ridiculously good lens, with unreal sharpness, even wide open. Unbelievable piece of equipment. ALTHOUGH, i did have lots of AF issues with it when I had it. An additional Sigma dock may be required to manually calibrate it and update firmware. That will cost another $60. I've heard the latest firmware does solve a lot of issues with newer Canons but don't quote me on it. But these are things that can be fixed. One thing that can't, and probably the biggest issue I would have with it, is that this lens is MASSIVE. The f/1.8 aperture across the entire focal range makes for a big and heavy lens. To put it in perspective, it's twice the weight of the SL2 and using it as a primary lens may make the entire camera feel very unbalanced.

u/Streetiebird · 5 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

Kit lenses are actually pretty good. Which ones do you have? 18-55mm and 55-200mm?

If you feel like you'd be swapping lenses too much you could get the 18-135mm which would cover most of that range in a single lens.

If it were me I would use your kit lenses to their fullest, and purchase something with a wider aperture like a 50mm f1.8.

u/wh0ever · 5 pointsr/photography

I don't shoot Canon and this is a little more expensive at $110 but here's a 50mm lens that should work for your friend.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens
Any Canon shooters can correct me if I'm wrong but this should mount to your friend's camera and it seems pretty popular. Good luck! You sound like a thoughtful friend.

u/Isaiaher · 5 pointsr/PanasonicG7

I agree with the two others, the Panasonic 25mm can be picked up cheap! Lens

u/HybridCameraRevoluti · 5 pointsr/Filmmakers

Hi /u/Rebelarch - it sounds like you come from fixed lens cameras. With an interchangeable lens camera, you can get shallower depth of field simply by buying a faster lens.

For less than the cost of a new camera and lens, you might try a [$799 Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for Canon] ( or, if that's too expensive, a [$125 Canon 50mm f1.8] (

Wide open, either of these lenses will give you nice and shallow depth of field on your T2i.

Good luck!

u/ElementK · 5 pointsr/photography

I also have a 6000D and I actually loved the 55-250 before this issue I'm having. Everything was crisp and amazing value for the money. Check out these images that were apparently taken with this lens. With cheaper lenses like this, the some of the only things you'll be compromising are the amount of light you'll let in (or the widest available aperture), the focus speed (which was just fine on this one - you won't miss the speed if you haven't owned $1000+ lenses), and some clarity. But rust me, you won't regret buying this lens, you'll find yourself using it more often than the 18-55mm you own. Just so you know, the issue I'm having is likely due to dropping it, so don't worry about that.

u/la-fours · 5 pointsr/photography

f/4 is actually quite good for a lens of this size. Keep in mind that f-values are a ratio that you can use to calculate the actual physical diameter of the aperture opening. 1 stop larger of aperture would mean an opening that's almost equivalent of the front lens element which would make the 200-400 an extremely expensive and much heavier piece of glass.

If you want to know what a zoom lens with a really wide aperture would be like then look no further than this Sigma.

u/JustThall · 5 pointsr/todayilearned
u/meatatarian · 5 pointsr/photography

Nikon actually makes a fantastic 35 mm 1.8 that I would recommend over the 50 mm 1.8 on the crop sensored d5100. 35mm on a crop is very close to the normal zoom and range of vision you get with your eyes, so it's more intuitive to use. Plus, it's only $200.

Check it out on Amazon. Note: It only works on DX Nikons, not FX.

u/whiskeysnowcone · 5 pointsr/photography

That's a shame. I did find some 10mm and 18mm lenses for the D5500 but the prices are just outrageous. Looks like my kit lens will have to do for wide angles. I still might invest in the 35mm prime. seems to be a good price for a great lens.

Thanks for the input!

u/SPOOFE · 5 pointsr/Nikon

D3200 and 35mm f/1.8 DX. The camera is lightweight and simple, with excellent technical image quality. Controls and build quality aren't as robust as pricier cameras, and the step-up model, the D5200, has a flip-out screen. The lens performs very well for the money, and other options start getting pricy really fast in some cases.

u/nal1200 · 5 pointsr/photography

The lens is easy - get a new/used Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

The body will be somewhat subjective. This is the first one I had, and I'd recommend it. Used is around $250-300. Nikon D5100

Edit: Instead of the 35mm lens, you can get the FX 50mm 1.8g, which is about $50 more, which will be better for portraits. The 35mm will give you more versatility. Neither will be all that great for landscape. I recommend the 35mm since it's the equivalent focal length of 53mm, which is pretty close to the 'standard' focal length.

u/Hitokiri_Ace · 5 pointsr/AnimeFigures

Nikon d3200 body, and a 1.8 35mm nikkor lens.

Probably the best bang for your buck you can get. (imo) ~$350-ish total

-good platform to start learning on
-great picture quality-good all purpose focal length 35mm (50mm equivelent on the aps-c sensor)
-good low light performance with that fast prime lens

Feel free to ask any questions.

u/code_and_coffee · 5 pointsr/photography

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is about as best of quality you can get without spending the money on an L lens. It runs for $400 but you can find them going for much cheaper on eBay.

Sample shots

More sample shots

u/RegulusWolf · 5 pointsr/Nikon

For your budget if you wanted to stick with Nikon you could pick up a used Nikon D600/D610 and probably a used 20mm f/1.8G and 50 f/1.8G, which would cover you for a lot of uses, and still be a really light kit with awesome low-light performance and much better controls. 20mm is generally wide enough for most applications, and if you need anything wider you could always stitch images in post. I think that this setup would probably even be lighter than a D7200+17-50 setup, since those f/1.8G lenses are super light. Oh, and you would also get more than a stop of extra light before even considering the extra low-light bonus of full frame, which is fantastic for doing nighttime landscapes. And they are super sharp! Probably sharper than the f/1.4G primes that I have...

Used D600:

Used 20mm f/1.8:

Used 50mm f/1.8:

And I think that the prime lenses have some weather sealing in them too, and the battery life out of the EN-EL15 batteries is awesome (from my experience with them in my 2x D7000, D600, D800, and D810.)

However, if it were me I would pick up a used Fujifilm X-T1 and a 14mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2WR, which would be WAY lighter, but you would have to carry a few extra batteries.

u/inssein · 5 pointsr/SonyAlpha

I think the sigma 30 f1.4 would be a better choice. ( just my opinion)


u/theriehldale · 5 pointsr/photography

I also have the 77D with the 50mm 1.8. I bought the 24mm 2.8 pancake lens and love it. Great cheap lens for all sorts of shooting. Love using it to take landscape shots but is also great for portrait shooting a subject up close.

u/fryfrog · 5 pointsr/canon

The [24mm f2.8 EF-S] ( lens is just a really good, fairly fast prime lens for really cheap.

Get the [T7i] ( w/ the kit lens, it should be much newer than what came w/ the other body if it is 8 years old. If you can afford the 18-135mm version and the 24mm pancake, go that route. If not, snag the 18-55mm version and the 24mm pancake.

Mission accomplished. :)

Edit: All that said, maybe instead of surprising her w/ an actual camera... how about surprising her w/ a rental of both the T7i and a good mirrorless camera, let her decide and then buy the one she likes? Mirrorless cameras are a ton smaller, so if the size of the DSLR stops it from getting used quite as much... a mirrorless might be just the ticket. :)

u/TonyDarko · 4 pointsr/photography

That was an excellent and thoughtful gift, kudos to you. Aside from the lenses, there are a few other things that help a lot when starting out in photography (I'm just figuring this out as I'm pretty new):

  • A tripod can help if he wants to take low-light pictures and set up really long shutter times (it basically makes it so that no shaking messes up his pictures) and it can help to take pictures of you guys. I'm planning on bringing one for a trip with my girlfriend and I so we can take cool pictures where there may not be other people to help out.

  • A good bag or backpack would be great, increasingly so as the amount of gear that he has goes up. It's tough to carry around all that crap, and these bags make it pretty easy to fit.

  • a strap, pretty self explanatory. carrying around a DSLR in one hand sucks.

  • Extra memory cards and possibly an external hard drive are nice because RAW camera files take up a toooon of storage and having backups is always nice in the case that a really important picture gets corrupted.

    As for lenses:

    Nikon 35mm prime (basically allows him to take pretty nice, wide open landscape pictures at great quality)

    50mm prime widely regarded as the best starting lens (another no zoom lens that is an all-around all-star that is pretty versatile. good for portraits, landscapes, etc)
u/Sillyfattourist · 4 pointsr/photography

Canon 40 mm vs the nifty fifty?

I was just browsing through deals on amazon and noticed that the canon 40mm f/2.8 is selling for only $25 more(after rebate) than the acclaimed "nifty fifty". I was wondering if anyone would recommend picking up one of these over the 50mm? Or has one used both and can give me some advice on which they prefer and why?

Here's the link to the 40mm for anyone that's interested:

u/aZubaer · 4 pointsr/photography

40mm EF f2.8 pancake. I have one my self can recommend it. It's a very nice glass. Although now i bought the Sigma 18-35, and I don't use that often anymore, because the difference between 35 and 40 isn't that much.

u/inverse_squared · 4 pointsr/AskPhotography

What lens does she have with the camera? I wouldn't really call lenses "accessories". What does she like to photograph?

Does she have a nice camera bag? Does she need any memory cards? Lens cleaning cloths or a rocket blower? Circular polarizing filter? Extra batteries?

Note, for the Rebel t7, the "nifty fifty" would actually be ~30mm. There is no Canon 30mm lens in your price range, but you could get the 24mm or 40mm instead. Each are $130. I would lean towards the 24mm.

u/M_Core · 4 pointsr/photography

Can't beat the 40mm pancake for portability, decent image quality, and cheapness if it breaks.

It might be too wide for landscapes but if a 50mm was working well for you the 40mm should be perfect.

Amazon Link:

Edit: I actually did mean to say it might not be wide enough, not the other way around... but good to know some people prefer a longer lens for landscapes.

u/hallflukai · 4 pointsr/photography

It will get the job done! You might want to go for The 24mm for a really 'all purpose' lens though.

I really wish Canon had a 35mm in that price range

u/moby414 · 4 pointsr/AskPhotography

I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for my 700D (T5i) and I really enjoy it for dark/landscape photography. Great for general use too although it's got quite a large diameter so filters can be a bit pricey!

I also bought a cheap, off-brand filter kit to test them out and mainly protect the glass.

u/thatguyron · 4 pointsr/canon

It might be possible but I can't come up with anything under $200.

The best I can come up with are:

Used Tokina 12-24 mm for $278 categorized as "EX" (excellent) condition
A used and rather beat-up Sigma 10-20 mm for $268 categorized as "BGN" (bargain) condition
A used Rokinon 14 mm for $276.21 (but realize this one is manual focus and doesn't zoom)

u/anubisjak · 4 pointsr/Cameras

All manufacturers make a "budget" 50mm. Pentax is the best for my money, then Canon, but the Nikon one is DEFINITELY better than this, and it's not that much more expensive.

Definitely worth buying over this one - I promise. You're probably only looking at a 40 dollar difference.

u/peter__venkman · 4 pointsr/photography

They should be getting her a t3i. Or a t2i.

The difference between SDXC and SDHC cards, from what I know, is mainly how much data storage they support. SDHC, or Secure Digital Extended Capacity, can support up to 2 TB, 2.0 limits this to about 32 GB. The new 4.0 format will fix this.

SDHC, or Secure Digital High Capacity, are rated up to 32 GB, run on 2.0, and are known for their compatibility.

Is one BETTER than the other? I don't think I am qualified to say that, but I think SDHC will be a better bet for now. I am not even sure if the t3/t2i/t3i support 32 GB. But you don't have to take my word for it.

If you can afford it, buy this lens for her. Tell her to use that with her kit lens for awhile until she gets the hang of her camera.

I would also look at Kata Bags

If you be stackin' benjamins like a real pimp yo (sorry I'm really white) then get her Lightroom 3


DSLR. I just say SLR, but some people have sticks in their buttholes about terminology. (I mean shit, I corrected you, right?)

u/2013orBust · 4 pointsr/videography

Hmmm. I like to have at least one prime. The Nifty Fifty is cheap, and if you must get another zoom with that $600, you should at least get this too.

u/adivirgi · 4 pointsr/food

How do you like the 60d? I was using the 50mm for most of these shots. It's an inexpensive lens, amazing for portraits of people, and great for food and drinks. Link below to the exact lens. Highly recommend.

Also check out the Food and People sections of my photography site if you want to see more of what that lens can do. Feel free to message me if you have more questions :)

u/ErrantWhimsy · 4 pointsr/funny

Nice! This shot was taken with the Canon Rebel T3i, just the step above yours. The kit lens is just alright, if you want to get some seriously amazing shots, invest the $100 in the nifty fifty lens. The details and clarity will amaze you.

I think you have potential. Seek out more of your friends for some portrait practice! If it is a sunny day, set your camera to ISO 100, an aperture less than f8, and adjust your shutter speed until the exposure is accurate.

If you end up taking more shots, let me know how it goes!

u/naux · 4 pointsr/photography

do you know what kind of lenses she has? Do you also know what kind of Canon camera she has? There will be numbers and letters on the right side of the body if you have it facing you.

Is probably one of the most popular "cheapest" lenses for Canon.

u/fivethirdstwo · 4 pointsr/AskPhotography

You should seriously consider picking up a 35mm DX F/1.8 instead. Thats what I did for my d3200 and it is amazing what it did for me in terms of flexibility for exposure. I recently got a hand me down 18-105mm and it just feels restrictive in comparison.

u/ForwardTwo · 4 pointsr/ReviewThis

I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100

The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.

55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.

So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.

There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.

My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.

But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.

I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.

My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.

I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D

The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D

u/tchirman · 4 pointsr/photography

I highly recommend this lens It is sharper overall, and is a great focal length on a D5200. Also, Nikon DOES NOT accept Canon Lenses, even with an adaptor.

u/megluesta · 4 pointsr/Cameras

Only the lens of a (D)SLR camera will affect the aperture in any way. If the largest aperture you are achieving is 3.5, I am guessing that you are currently using the kit lens (the lens that came with the camera). To achieve a larger aperture I suggest a prime lens (a lens that only has one focal length = cannot zoom) because the tend to have much bigger maximum aperture. for the d3000 i suggest the 35mm 1:1.8G DX as it is specifically designed for dx cameras like your own, it is about at normal view, and best yet it has a great large aperture.

u/Applestodapples · 4 pointsr/MakeupAddiction

Thanks! A decent eyelash curler and layering two types of mascara made a huge difference in my mascara game. The lens is dis one

u/maximaLz · 4 pointsr/astrophotography


Sadly, around the 150 mark, you won't find much for widefield.

However, at this price point, your best bet is a prime 50mm f1.8 lens, the f1.8 means it will collect a lot of light, but the 50mm means you'll have a much tighter field of view. It is not a bad thing though, as you can start to capture some details on some DSOs like M42 pretty easily if you are in an okay light pollution area. You can also make panoramas, some of the best milky way shots I've seen are actually exactly that. Huge panoramas!

This is a great article about just that.

Let me know if you need more informations about that, and good luck!

EDIT : Be aware though, that at 50mm, your maximum exposure should not exceed 10s. This is not very much, especially if you go to f2.8 for better image quality. The amazing panorama stitches you see out of 50mm lenses are done with tracked mounts such as a Orion SkyAdventurer mount!

u/gingerstick · 4 pointsr/Filmmakers

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

Called the "nifty fifty"

Super cheap and great for learning composition

u/superish64 · 4 pointsr/rawdenim

So I’m looking into buying a nicer camera. I have a buddy that’s really into photography who recommended a Canon t3i or t4i and then a 50mm lens.

I was wondering if anybody here had some suggestions on sources for explaining differences in lens types or could explain the difference between a 50mm and a “75-300mm” lens. I’ve also been comparing the t3i, t4i and t2i using this and can’t really see a reason to go for the more expensive options rather than just finding a used t2i on craigslist.

I’m also totally open to other camera/lens suggestions.

It’s worth noting that I’d mostly be using the camera to take pictures of people/what they’re wearing. My max budget is $400 and I’d prefer to find something ~$300 used off craigslist or something.


In other news, the semester's almost done (thank god) and I'm getting more excited to go to Seattle/Portland the closer it gets.

What's everyone up to?

u/StradlatersFirstName · 4 pointsr/videography

Check out the 50mm f/1.8. It's a perfect pairing for your 550D because of its wide aperture (which means more light) and low price. Just be aware that this lens has a fixed focal length which means you won't be able to zoom in or out.

u/sigmoidx · 4 pointsr/astrophotography

What do you guys think about the gear I'm planning to buy for astro?

I have a canon Rebel Sl2 unmodified camera.

Skytracker 390
(I'm considering the skyguider pro also)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 133

Celestron 15x70 100

GEEKOTO Tripod 200cm, Camera Tripod for DSLR 106

Rokinon 135mm f2.0 690

u/dsrw · 4 pointsr/M43

Do you only have the kit lens for the ep3? If you have any sort of decent lens selection I'd personally stay on m43, at least for now. The lens selection for the M50 is poor, and canon just released a brand new lens mount that's completely incompatible with it. Some people are worried about the future of the system. It probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but it is a weird time to be buying into EF-M.

If you don't have any other lenses, you might want to think about whether or not you should be on an ILC system at all. A good compact camera with a fast lens like the LX10, RX100, LX100 or Canon G series will probably take better pictures than an m50 with kit lens or an em3 with the oly 12-40. If you decide to stay with an ILC, do you find yourself limited by your current camera? 24mp is great, but if you're not doing big crops or giant prints you might not even notice the difference. Generally speaking, investing in better lenses tend to have a bigger payoff than getting a new body, but if there's something specific about your current camera that's holding you back it might be time to upgrade.

I personally think the best inexpensive camera right now is the Panasonic GX85. It's a great camera, an amazing value, and will work with your existing lenses. I think the best first lens for m43 is the Panasonic 25mm f1.7. It's $150, optically excellent, and great in low light. It isn't a zoom, but it's a useful focal length for lots of different applications.

u/Nycholus · 4 pointsr/bmpcc

Got this for power and love it > Juicebox Battery for Blackmagic Cameras (Pocket 4K, Micro, Pocket, Cinema, Production & Video Assist)

Decent but cheap met lens > PANASONIC LUMIX Professional 25mm...

u/Niqulaz · 4 pointsr/photography

I can give you a few of the most important pieces of advice, and answer the most common questions right away.

  1. Yes, at the moment you'll do fine with the kit lens. You have no idea about what you're doing anyway at the moment. So you don't need anything else. By all means, if you get a deal that involves an extra lens at a reduced price, then go for it. But that's just about it for now.

  2. Understanding Exposure. Buy it. Read it. It is without a doubt one of the best books you can purchase when you're starting out with photography.

  3. Now that you have a basic understanding of what the knobs and dials and buttons do, you will discover that your equipment has limitations. So yes, you do need another lens. I recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 , also known as the "nifty fifty" or the "plastic fantastic". That should cover all your needs in low light. You could do well with a telezoom as well. Any cheap-ass lens will do as a start, until you learn to hold your camera steady and you know what you're doing wrong. Then, and only then is it time to upgrade.

  4. After getting what I mentioned above, you need to think a bit more about what you're gonna do, and what you really need. Gear Acquisition Syndrome is a serious problem, which can end up costing you thousands. There's a good chance you will need a monopod or tripod. You will probably find yourself wanting a flash. A polarizing filter is almost a necessity if you want to take pictures of nature.

  5. DO NOT THROW AWAY THE KIT LENS. People will be lining up around the block to tell you how terrible your canon EF-S 18-55mm is, should you end up buying a rebel. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM.
    The time to throw out the kit-lens and replace it with a better standard lens, is when you understand for yourself why you need to throw out your kit lens and replace it with something better. You will eventually get to a point where it's your equipment and not your skill that's holding back the quality of your pictures. That time wont come around this year. Quite probably not next year either.

  6. Good luck. Welcome to a hobby that will cost you a lot of money, time and frustration. Remember, the only way to become a better photographer, is to take loads of pictures. Every mistake is a learning opportunity.
u/novawreck · 4 pointsr/Filmmakers

Canon's EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 is a great starter lens. It covers a wide to standard focal range, it's fast, has image stabilization, and by most accounts has image quality and edge to edge sharpness comparable to L-series glass.

Do not listen to the people in this thread who recommend getting a prime as your first and only lens.

u/ThePugDC · 4 pointsr/photoit

Well, there's the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It's only a little bit wider, but quite a bit faster and a lot better built than the 18-55. It's not cheap though.
Or you could go off-brand and look at either the Sigma 18-50 or the Tamron 17-50

u/DatAperture · 4 pointsr/photography

Rent the 17-55 f2.8

u/LanFeusT23 · 4 pointsr/Astronomy

He did not have access to a huge telescope :)

That was a 70-300mm lens on his camera, something like this. Most "huge" telescope would not have a big enough field of view to image the whole comet.

u/Raging_Asian_Man · 3 pointsr/canon

My god. They did it! This is exactly what I'm looking for. Ready for a quantum leap from my T3i!!!


Just to be sure, can someone confirm that I can still use my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens if I have the adapter?

u/phloating_man · 3 pointsr/videography

I have an EOS M.

I'd suggest installing Magic Lantern firmware to unlock 3x lossless crop zoom which gives you the same benefits of the t3i crop zoom.

Along with the 22mm it came with, I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Sigma 30mm 1.4 that work with my Fotodiox EOS M adapter.

The EOS M goes through batteries kind of quick, so I bought a 2 pack third party Wasabi batteries and charger.

I also have an EOS M AC adapter which lets you plug the EOS M into a wall or to a large battery like this...

Here's a couple videos I shot with the EOS M.

u/d3jg · 3 pointsr/canon

I would add to this a recommendation for considering a "nifty fifty" as one of your near future lens additions. I still don't know why Canon doesn't include this as a kit lens, but hey, I guess they figure it's a great way to squeeze an extra $125 out of everybody. This is a de facto standard prime lens for all Canon users.

u/filemeaway · 3 pointsr/photography

I'd say get the Canon t2i kit with the 18-135mm and a nifty fifty.

That's $970 so far, but he'll probably want a bag that can hold the camera and extra lens. Tamrac makes great bags.

So you've got a great kit with a lot of range and a sharp prime that rocks at low light.

Additional recommended purchases would be the book Understanding Exposure and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.

Edit: To be fair, maybe have him check out a Nikon DSLR (D5100 would be a comparable choice) along with a Canon to determine which one feels better. Both companies make great cameras of similar quality and performance—it really does come down to personal preference. And as a side note, I personally shoot a Nikon.

u/docfluty · 3 pointsr/photography

I would say this is a good list for those looking to take nice pictures on a budget.

But if you were going to be a photography student or really try to make a go at it i would stay skip the older lenses and just invest in a $125 or $400 50mm prime lens from your cameras manufacturer.

I also would say not to be scared to pick up a used one from a reputable dealer on ebay for a bigger discount

The sharpness, loca, ect will be better and all of the electronics (like autofocus) will work.

u/eMilyFiLBy · 3 pointsr/crossdressing

Canon T2i, which is an awesome camera, but the REAL winner is the f1.4 lens I use with it.

Really wonderful lens, the low light capabilities are amazing. Some of my other posts have pictures, almost all taken with that same lens.

u/skalpelis · 3 pointsr/photography

Congratulations on your birthday! However, regarding the lens, isn't the equivalent Canon lens actually cheaper (or at least the same price) than this? (I'm looking at

u/Shyvah · 3 pointsr/photography

I've just bought the Canon 50mm F1.4 from Amazon in the UK. In the picture, it has white detail (Pic here)

The one that has arrived has gold detail, which appears to be an older version. Is there any material difference or is this just trim? I could have got the older version from eBay for cheaper, but thought it best to get the most recent version, which is why I went with Amazon. I am tempted to return it, but would much rather get snapping with it! :)

Thoughts welcome! Thanks.

u/jujjyfruit · 3 pointsr/Filmmakers

You should really get a prime lens if you're a beginner. I thought it would be a hindrance if anything, but the lack of zoom makes you WAY more conscious of your shot composition. The most recommended lens after the kit one is the "nifty fifty" a 50mm f/1.8 prime. Mine is a canon FD, I bought it off ebay along with an FD to EF adapter, cost ~80 bucks total (the EF-S version is only like 120 bucks either way).

If it's really burning a hole in your pocket, I'd go with audio and lighting equipment first, and then either a 24-70 or a 17-55

u/Bensmcc · 3 pointsr/BuyItForLife

It's not though. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm is far better than the Canon EF 28-135.

u/MacGyverisms · 3 pointsr/photography

I can't really recommend the DX 55-300 either, especially for wildlife photography. I find the focusing to be highly inaccurate and slow, and that's with stationary subjects. It's most noticeable at the the 300mm end of the lens. Anything moving (like wildlife) is going to be really difficult to get in focus. The manual focus ring is also very touchy, which is something to consider if you'll be using it often. I still keep mine around for that odd graduation or other event where I need the extra reach, but most of the time it sits on my shelf collecting dust. That being said, I've heard good things about the Nikon 70-300mm. The AF is faster, and it's compatible on FF cameras. You also get the same aperture range as the 55-300mm. This is the lens I wish I picked up instead of my 55-300mm. Make sure you pick up the AF-S version I've linked if you have a camera in the D3000-5000 like I do. Those ranges don't have built in focusing motors and thus you need an AF-S lens. If you have a D7000 and up though, you can save yourself a bit of money and buy the older version of the lens. You forgo VR and a few other things, but save yourself $350. Good luck!

u/Iamthetophergopher · 3 pointsr/photography

EDIT: Just realized pics 2-4 are of different lenses, flip them around and show us the other end. Assuming you have a 18-55 and maybe a 55-200 or a 18-135. Can't tell from the photos.

Google will be your friend:

First picture is the camera body, Nikon D40x, a decent but older camera, 10 MP, a pretty decent camera for a starter kit. Amazon for the camera and the kit lens

SEE EDIT: Second picture through the fourth are shots of what looks to be the Nikon "kit" lens, or the one that most likely came with his camera. 18-55mm, which is sort of the standard cheap but good zoom lens (zoom meaning adjustable) that gives you a mix of wide angle and a little bit of reach for farther away shots. This is most people's beginning lens.

Next comes a sensor brush. The sensor of a digital camera uses electrically sensitive sensor chips to capture an image, with a common downside being that the static of the charge can attract dust. This brush is specifically designed to attract said dust to it instead of the sensor for cleaning. I wouldn't recommend trying to clean the sensor yourself until you've read up on exactly what to do.

Next is a flash, I don't know much about this model, unfortunately, but flashes can run from a few bucks to hundreds of dollars, depending on the tech and quality. Assuming it is a real SB-600, it's a pretty solid flash and sells on Amazon for a few hundred bucks

The next one is the 70-300 Nikon lens, this is a telephoto zoom, meaning it's variable in zoom, but starts at a pretty modest telephoto range of 70mm to a really long 300mm. This is good for sports and such. Amazon link

Most of the rest of this stuff is miscellaneous gear:

Next photo is a flash cord, this allows you to control your flash (the SB-600) without having to have the flash on top of your camera. This allows for greater creative flexibility in your lighting. Most pro/sumers use wireless triggers nowadays, but a connected flash cord is great bceause it rarely fails. Cheap part.

Next are a series of converters. The wide conversions take your lens at whatever focal length it is set at, say 18mm with that 18-55. This then "converts" the image your camera sees to a wider image, say a 12mm, giving you a wider field of view. The teleconverters do the opposite, lengthening the focal length, say from 300mm to 400-something. This will allow you to zoom in deeper. The issue with these sometimes is that since they implement an additional layer of glass between the subject, your lens, and the camera, the quality of the converter can degrade photo quality and you get in less light, meaning you need to adjust the camera settings to capture what you want, sometimes making a shot impossible to get, or at least difficult. I don't know enough about these Nikon ones, but for Canon, they vary in price from $50-400 or more.

The rings look like lens adapters, allowing you to adapt lenses from other manufacturers to the camera. Can't tell what they're for, though. Does he have other non-Nikon lenses around?

I think the Stroboframe is to hold flashes or strobes off of the camera and also has an additional grip.

The rings with tinted glass are filters of some kind, placed at the end of your lens to produce an effect, like polarizing the image, reducing how much light goes through (ND filter) or cuts out some of the UV light that might be hitting your sensor. Can't tell what you have there, though. One of them says PL, that's most likely a polarizer. Both of them will fit a lens that has a 37mm threaded end, which will be written on the side of the lenses.

The last picture is a battery grip. This slides into the battery housing on the bottom of the camera, and provides controls for shooting vertically, as well as carrying 2x batteries instead of one for longer battery life. Makes for a chunkier camera, which is nice in a studio, but sort of sucks when you're out hiking or trying to be discreet.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

u/ironic5589 · 3 pointsr/photography

So i'm in the exact same boat as you, i'm not a pro by any means and i love my D7000. My only gripe is they software limit of 3 frame bracketing, it bugs the crap out of me. However, i'm sure my next upgrade will be a FX body so i have tried to balance which lenses i buy. I would recommend looking on craigslist for some used fast glass. You have to be carefull but you can find someone decent every once and awhile.

This depends on your budget but these are the lenses i own currently and they seem to cover most of my needs.

50 1.8 AF-S FX - A must have i would say, super sharp a great lenses but can be a little tight indoors due to the crop factor

Nikon 70-300 FX - I really like this lens. I think it focuses faster than the 55-200 my girlfriend has and i find it to be fairly sharp. The only downside is that it not fast glass, so gett a 70-200 2.8 if you want top of the line and are willing to spend $1500 more.

Nikon 28-70 Fx 2.8 - This is the older version of the 24-70 2.8 and i picked it up used off of craigslist. This has been my GO TO lens. Its a little heavy but i have used it as a walk around. I will say the only downside is the 28 is not very wide on a dx body and you can really tell the difference between it and the 18mm kit lens.

I have a range of DX lenses as well but my girlfriend usually uses those on her d90 and i wouldn't recommend them if you have the budget and know that you will upgrade to FX at a later date. I would almost recommend buying a used kits lens off of craigslist, a 18-55 usually runs $100 bucks or so. The reason being that its hard and expensive to find FX glass below 24. There is the 14-24 but that will set you back. The 18mm on a kit lense will give you that wide side for when you need it for super cheap and decent sharpness.


u/iiivf · 3 pointsr/photography

It appears this model, used, is around 300 dollars. If you sell the 18-105mm, as well as the third lens, she can probably keep the macro lens, and not need to spend much to get the 70-300mm. Again, granted she doesn't need the wider prespective in that she loses by not using the 28-300mm. 28-70mm is a very common range, and valuable if she does any shooting indoors. She will find herself with her back up against the wall shooting with a minimum focal length of 70mm.

u/ZacharyRD · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

Honestly, that lens is not worth it, because it's a very awkward lens for most things on a 1.6x crop body, such as the 60D. 300mm on a 60d is the equivilent to >450mm on a full frame sensor, and is not really necessary. Even if it was nicer glass, it's just not a lens I'd want to own as one of my first lenses.

If you wanted a cheap lens, it's not the one I'd buy -- The "Nifty Fifty" -- is even cheaper, and I'd prefer it. As I'd also prefer the Canon 40mm fixed lens.

If you want a telephoto lens, the kit lens Canon 55-250 is a much better buy, and can be found MUCH cheaper used, because it's practically given away in many kits. Amazon has their refurbished price as within $30 of each other.

u/UnoriginalGuy · 3 pointsr/photography

Yes, that would be a good start. Although the price is a little suspect. You can buy this from

  • $589: Canon EOS Rebel T2i, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
  • $199: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS

    So $88 for New Vs. Used, plus maybe better warranty on the new stuff? Interestingly the bundle cost more on Amazon than buying the two separately.

    PS - As a completely random note: When shopping look out for two "tricks:"

  • Camera bundled with an "off-brand" lens (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, etc). While there is nothing wrong with off-brand lenses, you really need to be able to spot the jewels from the duds. Canon lenses typically cost more but are generally all at least reasonable (excluding the 75-300, which is just trash).
  • "Accessories packs." No exceptions, these are all trash. Don't buy an accessories pack along with your camera. If you want the contents buy it all individually (E.g. SD Cards, Batteries, Cloths, etc).
u/iyamthewallruss · 3 pointsr/photography

Check, that is how I got mine.

Right now, if you buy the T2i from amazon with the 55-250mm IS, you get $200 off instantly (so the lens is almost free). Plus, if you buy a Pixma Pro9000 mkII with the camera, you can get a $400 AMEX card by mail. I did this and just sold the printer on CL for $250. I did a slightly different deal through newegg, but when it was all said and done, I ended up paying $420 for a T2i.

u/crazykoala · 3 pointsr/UFOs

I like Canon and they have a nice line of DSLRs. The EOS Rebel T2i has an 18 megapixel sensor with low light sensitivity, etc. Amazon has the body for $700 and you could add a telephoto lens for.. well, depends what you want to shoot.

I see this one for $250. It's a 650-2600mm telephoto lens. It's heavy and would require a tripod to use, but it would be interesting to see what you could see on things far away. Big Canon lenses can cost thousands of $$, so this is way cheap by comparison.

This 50-250mm zoom for $210 would be something you could leave attached and carry around.

Good luck in your camera and ufo hunting. I hope I have a good camera with me if I ever see something interesting in the sky. I have a Canon Vixia HD video camera that is more multi-purpose for my needs, but it has some nice image stabilization.

I might have a good example. I was at the rally last weekend and saw this balloon/parachute thing that seemed to be dangling a camera to get a crowd shot. Here's a clip where I zoomed in. Sometimes a handheld shot with that much telephoto can get unstable, but I was sitting and had an elbow braced on my knee as I recall, that plus the image stabilization helped me get a decent hi-res closeup to identify the object was from

The nice thing about the Canon DSLRs is that they can shoot 18 megapixel stills or HD video. The 2Ti is a replacement for the 1Ti. The new Canon that I am coveting is the 60D which goes for $1100 (body only) but they come out with something new and improved every couple of years.

EDIT: here's some marketspeak on the optical image stabilization used in the Vixia, I agree and thought it was pretty smooth compared to the previous generation of digital image stabilization I have used, and the small form factor makes for a camcorder that is easy to carry or even stick in your pocket. Here's a YouTube video of Vixia image stabilization.

A little further digging and I see in this review that the Canon 2Ti has optical image stabilization too. I haven't had my hands on one of these DSLR cameras but they seem to be getting better and better with each new release.

Hope that helps. And here's to having a camera in hand when you really need it! :)

u/NemoEsq · 3 pointsr/photography

Interesting that they have no mention of camera or lens restrictions.
You should show up with this and see how it goes.

u/RESERVA42 · 3 pointsr/photography

Short answer that does not involve buying new lenses: set the ISO to auto, shutter speed higher (1/500?), and exposure compensation at +1 (test and adjust).

Bonus, if your ISO isn't rocking it at 1600, put the camera in Av and stop down a little (f/8 maybe), and watch that the shutter speed stays high. You might have to take the ISO off of auto and put it at 800 or 1200.

If you want to buy a new lens, there's always the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8.

u/jeyreymii · 3 pointsr/france

Mon 18-55 kit de chez Canon ne me semble pas si super que ça... je me tate de le changer pour pouvoir faire des photos correctes. Pour ceux qui s'y connaissent, est-ce que le Sigma 17-50 est bon (ont dirait bien que oui) ou alors il ne vaut mieux pas prendre un sigma 18-200 pour plus de versatilité - même s'il est plus sombre et risque d'etre moins bon en piqué... et j'ai déjà un 55-250 (en plus du 50mm f1.8)

J'ai surtout pas envie d'acheter un objo pour acheter un objo, mais je veux une galette pour faire des photos de qualité quand même, donc j'ai vraiment envi de savoir si ça peut valoir le coup

u/travshootsphotos · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

I am a little bit biased because it is what I shoot on, but a Pentax either with built-in Astrotracer (K3ii) or with the extra Astrotracer equipment would be my recommendation if you aren't ready or willing to invest in something like an equatorial mount for your tripod. This is the body I shoot on, a little bit more expensive than the body you are looking at but for astro, I think it is well worth the extra investment.

As for lens, anything with a wide aperture (2.8f at least) and a wide angle lens. I pretty much haven't taken my Sigma 17-50mm off of my camera in a year or two. For a small preview, this body/lens setup is what I used to get this shot at the top of Loveland Pass in Colorado.

u/NotFromCalifornia · 3 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

24 mm f2.8 pancake. It is incredibly tiny, has a decently fast aperture, STM autofocus, and costs $150 with a Tiffen CPL (great for landscape shots) on Amazon. 24mm is a decent intermediate focal length on APS-C; not very wide, but not telephoto either.


If you needed a larger aperture there is the fully manual [Samyang/Rokonin 24mm f1.4] ( for ~$430 and is two stops faster than the 24mm pancake, but you lose autofocus.


You could also get a new or used Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. It won't be as sharp as the primes (it is still a top performing zoom) but it is more versatile; having a 17mm f2.8 option could be invaluable for landscapes on an APS-C camera.


If you wanted something even wider, Samyang/Rokonin make a 14mm f2.8 and a 16mm f2.0 that are both fully manual lenses. They run about $300 for the 14mm and $350 for the 16mm. Both are bitingly sharp and are perfect for landscapes/astro but might be a bit too wide for portraiture unless you like the wider perspective.

u/CajunBindlestiff · 3 pointsr/photography

$1000 is more than enough to get a great camera and lens!
Buy this lens on sale now, with its pro features it's the best first lens investment you can make.
This body also has lots of pro level features and will be perfect for you to learn on.

u/turboRock · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I've got the Sigma on my d7100. I think it's great. I've not compared it to the Nikon one. The one I have is -

u/bobloadmire · 3 pointsr/photography

I purchased a 14mm lens, but I just realized it doesn't accept threaded filters. (

Can I just buy a sheet of polarized paper and rotate it infront of the lens when I shoot? Any better options? Filter holders won't work because you can't rotate the filter, correct?

u/OneLegAtATime · 3 pointsr/photography
u/opus-thirteen · 3 pointsr/canon

There's really not much out there for $300-$400 without doing a whole lot of scouring on the used market.

If you can wait a bit more I personally love the Rokinon [email protected], which they do make in an AF sensor and non AF sensor versions (both are manual focus though). The version that doesn't have the focus indicators is pretty risky to use,

From Rocky Mountain National Park a couple months ago:Img #1 Img #2 Img #3

u/lukearens · 3 pointsr/photocritique

I shoot almost exclusively at night. This photo isn't sharp because it is slightly out of focus. In-focus stars will look like this and your foreground at that distance should also be in focus. Focusing at night is obviously problematic. What I've learned to do is to find a bright star or a light on the horizon and use live view to focus on it. That should put your lens at infinity and if your foreground is far enough, it should be sharp as well.

If you stop down, don't go much lower than f5.6 or f8, any lower than that and you will have to compensate with longer exposures, turning your stars into streaks. Wider lenses are better for star shots generally, as they can see more of them while increasing. I use this great cheap 14mm f2.8 prime. A general rule to follow for exposure time on a crop sensor is 400/focal length, 600/focal length for full frame bodies. Sticking near this number will help prevent your stars from "pilling" or stretching out.

Shoot RAW if you can. If you can get Camera RAW with Elements, it will allow you tons of ways to adjust the image, most importantly white balance.

u/tjl_p · 3 pointsr/Cameras

The Rokinon 14mm might work. It's around $250 new but it's manual focus. That being said, I was planning on selling my Canon 10-18. I bought it, used it twice, then immediately switched to Fuji so I'm looking to get rid of it. PM me if you're interested, it should be what you're looking for.

u/RXrenesis8 · 3 pointsr/photography

Here are some options:

$8 reversal ring

$10 extension tubes, $40 if you want aperture control (I forgot you guys don't have aperture control rings...)

$40 bellows

Summary: With your current lens I'd say the $40 extension tubes are your best bet as they allow aperture control. Getting true macro sizes will be best with the bellows and the reversal ring however you will want a lens with an aperture ring so that you can stop down to extend your depth of field. If you are using a reversal ring it doesn't even have to be a canon lens, just buy a lens that you can thread onto your reversal ring... in fact, here's a really good setup:

$40 bellows + $7 reversing ring + $3 46-52mm or 49-52mm step up ring + $30 55mm takumar = $80

With this setup you can go all the way to 3x life size and have full aperture control. Just be sure to use it on a tripod, (and you'll probably want to light it with a flash) extreme macro shots are tricky!

u/jaystop · 3 pointsr/photoclass2012a

Another type of photography not mentioned (an one that I enjoy quite a bit) which relies heavily on a tripod is macro photography. These are some example of macro shots I have taken:




While a tripod is necessary in low light photography because it requires a longer shutter speed, it is vital to macro photography for that reason also, but a others as well:

  • If you can't afford an expensive macro/zoom lens (which I don't use), I find extension tubes to be very helpful. To use them you simply attach them between your lens and your camera body, adding a little more zoom to your lens.

    But they do have some downfalls. Ones such as these (which I own) do not allow aperture control. You also lose a lot of light when using them, maybe 3 stops or so. Hence the need for longer shutter speeds.

  • The biggest reason for using a tripod, though, is because when you are that close to something, the camera shake is amplified several fold. Even the slightest bit of movement that is imperceptible to the naked eye looks like you are trying to take a picture during an earthquake through the lens. So if you are serious about getting into macro shooting, you will need a tripod.

    I am going to try some light painting shots over the weekend when I have more time. I shall post my results.
u/Jobeanie123 · 3 pointsr/MacroPorn

The Canon 50mm 1.8 STM. Surprisingly sharp for the $100 I paid for it!

I'm using it with these extension tubes.

u/Posimagi · 3 pointsr/photography

This goes for any camera, but a Giottos Rocket Air Blower or similar, and a microfiber cloth (don't use a dry cloth on lenses though, if you can avoid it).

If you're into macro-on-the-cheap, you can get a set of extension tubes, but I wouldn't consider them a must-have unless that's your thing.

u/introverted_online · 3 pointsr/photography

Since OP is asking for lightened up advice... how about tricking out your lens cap with some gems, or stickers? Also, if you do sell your lenses like you mentioned in your edit, you could put a pin-hole in the middle of your lens cap and take photos that will show these accessory haters! Just make sure you don't hurt any of the gems when you drill the hole.

On a more serious note, you could check out extension tubes like this one to play around with macros.

u/caesareansalad · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Dream big? Well then.... a 50mm lens for portrait photography. I love photography and want to start a "real" business at some point, rather than just do a few photoshoots a year like I am now.

And also, a battery charger because I go through batteries like crazy. C'mon...gimme. :P

u/Mostly42Harmless · 3 pointsr/photography

I have a D3000 and recently found that only one 50mm f/1.8 lens worked with the camera link. By this I mean other lenses had to be manually focussed rather than focussed by the camera automatically. Just something to consider.
Edit: wait there the link is wrong; trying to find the correct one.
Edit 2: OK that's the one. Not sure if there is a 35mm suitable one though. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will tell you.

u/COFFEE_IS_4_CLOSERS · 3 pointsr/photography

There is a way to to do center focusing, though I don't have the exact steps to do so off the top of my head. I did it for my 3a when I got it and haven't returned to that part of the camera's menu. Just letting you know that there is a way though.

To add to Fafoah's comment, looking for lenses with aperture rings is something you definitely have to keep in mind with Nikon lenses; older lenses will have them while newer ones got rid of the ring completely. Something to look out for (again, with Nikon lenses), is that anything G will NOT have the aperture ring. On the other hand, lenses denoted as D will have rings.

For example, here's the Nikon 50mm f1.8G versus the Nikon 50mm f1.8D

The obvious advantage to this is cost; D's tend to be the older models and cheaper (though there are definitely a few exceptions). Disadvantage is image quality or lens durability. Personally, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, and I really like it especially because it didn't cost me an arm+leg.

Either way though, using any non-e-mount Sony lenses on the NEX will force you to manually focus which is fun especially with the NEX's peaking mode (when manually focusing, it highlights the in-focus bits) but 1) will take a while to be quick about it and 2) VERY difficult to do in the dark, especially when you become dependent on the peaking mode.

I should also add that because you can't auto-focus with other-brand lenses, this actually opens you up to much older lenses which also tend to be cheaper because they lack things like auto-focus or image stability. Because of this, I was able to pick up an old Nikon 105mm f2.5 AI-s lens for cheap. All said and done, I have 3 lenses and did not spend more than the cost of the camera.

u/adamp319 · 3 pointsr/photography

Hey /r/photography,

I'd like to buy an entry level camera, and I think I've settled on just buying a like new / refurb'd D3300 and then getting a NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G ... Is there any reason I shouldn't do this?

u/cmtrinks · 3 pointsr/photography

After wanting a DSLR for several years, I recently decided to bite the bullet and finally buy one. I picked up the D7000, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. While this lens is perfect for me so far and does everything that I want while I continue to learn, eventually I'll be looking to acquire more lenses. Heres where I'm confused on what would actually be the best lenses to purchase down the road. I'm not constantly shooting portraits, or fast paced sports games; I usually just shoot whatever I want, whenever.

I'm looking to grab either a 35mm, 50mm, or a wide angle. These are what I've found so far that have my interest: 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G. I'm not exactly sure which would be better since I have a 28-75. I've read a ton of articles of 35mm vs 50mm, and even wide angle but I'm still confused on which to buy. I would like to take city landscape, food, and possibly portraits with whatever lens I get. Any wide angle recommendations would be appreciated.

Secondly, I want to purchase a telephoto but I'm not sure which one would suit my lifestyle more. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $5-700 for this. I was looking at this model: 70-200mm f/2.8 I would eventually upgrade to a better telephoto, but for the time being I don't necessarily want to spend $1,000+. Any suggestions on what would be a better lens to buy instead of the one I linked, and what would be a good lens to upgrade to in a few years?

I've taken a few longer exposure night time shots that have turned out very nice, but I wasn't sure about how to do daytime bright light exposures until recently learning about neutral density filters. I've heard multiple pros and cons about adjustable ND filters, so I'm unsure if I should be buying an adjustable or regular filters.

u/anish714 · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I was in a similar position about 3 years ago. But then it was either the D3100 or the D5100. I chose the D5100. I chose it due to the higher ISO capability. I loved my decision. It was a much better camera than the 3100. I tried my buddy's 3100 and my 5100 side by side and mine outperformed 3100 significantly. The location was a dinner party at a restaurant. I was able to easily pull of images in low light he was not able to get. Also, the additional features helped me learn photography better. To me the 3100 seems like an advanced point and shoot camera with SLR capability. The 5100 gave me very good pictures, kept me interested, and kept me growing in photography for the last 3 years where the 3100 would have bored and disappointed me with photography in couple of months. Honestly, today, I am disappointed I just didn't go for a D7000. If I would have gotten the D7000, I believe I would have been satisfied for another year or two before upgrading. But it was my first DSLR and I wanted to learn how to shoot manual. I wanted to tip my toes in the water first before spending lots of $$$.

Yesterday, I just upgraded my 5100 to a D750. I was between the D7100, D610 and the D750. I figured why the heck not... I wanted something that can keep me satisfied for the next 5 years. Rather than constantly have my body go out of date then wanting to upgrade again.

To see what kind of pictures the D5100 can take, look here.
I am sure the D5300 will perform much better.

I highly recommend getting the Tamron 2.8 28-75 lens and skipping the kit lense. The Tamron 2.8 was my first lens purchase. All pictures you see above was taken with it. It will be the lense you may need for a while, unless you need a super zoom.
You can get it new for $500
or used < $400.

It is an FX lens and you can still use if if you decide to make the jump to FX later like I did. Even if you buy DX now, I suggest you still by FX lenses. I have only purchased 2 lenses over the last 3 years, but they have been very good lenses. They will serve me much longer than the bodies. If you do not want to spent that much on new lenses right now and want to get the kit lense (which I highly don't recommend), wait few months and get the 50mm prime lense. Its an excellent lense and you can use it on FX camera's as well. I am planning on this to be my next purchase after I get over the D750 sticker shock.

Edit: I also jumped from a Canon Powershot to Nikon DSLR. I have really enjoyed Nikon as they just felt better in my hands. Also D7000+ bodies has a built in motor so you can buy older lenses much cheaper.

Edit 2: Best Buy has a great deal going on now for a D7000 and a zoom lens for $800 bucks.

Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this...

u/GenericStatement · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Under $350, you really can't do much in the way of upgrading to a better telephoto lens, so I'd stick with the 70-300.

The 18-55 is good for landscapes. What you really need is a tripod for it. You can get a great one for about $150 these days, and the monopod part would help with sports, probably. But the real trick to landscape photography is actually not about the camera or the lens, since you're usually stopping down the lens to f/8 or f/11 and so even a mediocre lens will give you good images. The trick is that it takes a lot of discipline, mainly in getting up early or staying out late, because the few hours after sunrise and the few hours before sunset give you the best light, that is, the "golden hours". There are also the "blue hours" immediately before sunrise and after sunset. The second part of the discipline, besides the timing, is the repetition. You may have an awesome shot, but then it's cloudy, or the light isn't right, or whatever. Some of the great landscape photographers visit a spot dozens of times before they get "the shot". A lens, a camera, and a tripod, and lots of discipline.

The 35/1.8 AF-S DX is a good lens to start with and you can pick one up used for around $120. You can also get a 50/1.8 AF-S for about $150 used, or $220 new, which is a great portrait lens on your camera. These lenses let in much more light (about 8x as much as your 18-55 does at 35 and 50mm) and also allow you to create more blurred backgrounds. I like the 50 much better than the 35 for portraits; for me the 35 is too wide to be flattering unless you're doing an environmental portrait and including a good deal of the room/environment around the person (and if that's the case, just use your 18-55, since you'll want more depth of field (less background blur) to include the details of the environment.)

So yeah, if it were me, I'd get a good tripod/monopod like the link above for landscapes, and the 50/1.8 AF-S for portraits. That's about $300 right there if you get the lens used; there's tons of them on eBay or if eBay scares you, KEH has them in EX+ condition for $150 too. Buying lenses new is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do in photography (and it was a lesson I didn't really learn until I'd spent thousands!)

u/arachnophilia · 3 pointsr/photography

the modern nikon 50mm f/1.8g and 35mm f/1.8g DX are about the same price.

the addition of the focus motor seems to have doubled the price.

u/alisonfd · 3 pointsr/photography

They do.

However if you have a entry level camera without a autofocus motor in the body, then an AF lens will not focus on that camera and you will need to pay for an AF-S one for autofocus.

So this one is AF, so it will not focus on the D40-90, D3000 series, D5000 Series.

Whereas this one being AF-S will focus on those bodies as it has a motor in the lens

u/warkrismagic · 3 pointsr/photography

As far as that prime 50mm lens goes, personally I would spend a little bit more and get Canons 40mm pancake. Significantly higher build quality, and 40mm is just wide enough that you can usually take a step or two closer if needed, great for any indoor shooting.

I smashed my 50mm when I dropped my camera one day, replaced it with the 40mm, never looked back.

Here it is, $150!

u/thisalone · 3 pointsr/photography

A crop body like a Canon Rebel with a pancake lens is about as portable as it will get for a DSLR. Otherwise go for a good point and shoot or mirrorless.

u/AsleepConstruction · 3 pointsr/Cameras

Sony A6000 + the 18-105 F4 for general photography, this should be a good start and will get her a quality lens that will get her plenty of reach. This should be right around $1100ish

down the road she can add these options:

add the 35 f1.8 for great portrait photos with better background separation. Alternatively you can start her with this lens first, being smaller and lighter means she will be more likely carry it around with her.

add the 16 2.8 for hiking thanks to the compact size and theme parks, or just anywhere she needs it in a more compact size.

more size comparisons

u/MrMeursault · 3 pointsr/photography

I've been lusting over the A7s, it is the low light king. Not at all in your budget though. The D3200 probably isn't the best as it has troubles focusing in low light. The kit lens is a definite no no as it doesn't do well in low light. If you go DSLR go at least d5200 for $500 paired with the 35mm f/1.8 lens for $200. A refurbished d5300 can be found for $600 and would also be a great choice paired with that 35mm.

The Sony a6000 ($450 for body $600 for kit) is making a lot of noise in the mirrorless format at that pricepoint and can be paired with the 35mm f/1.8 at $400 for a total of $850, just above your budget.

u/Business__Socks · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography
u/BillyTheRatKing · 3 pointsr/photography

SD Cards

According to Canon's website, the t3i can record about 22 minutes to an 8GB SD card. So a 32GB card should be about 88 minutes.

When shopping for an SD card I would always suggest a name brand for reliability. For your specific camera, any card labeled SD/SDHC/SDXC should be compatible. For shooting 1080P video you want at least Class 10 speeds (the little C with a 10 in it). Faster cards are still backwards compatible.

I would suggest something like this SanDisk 32GB Class 10. And I'd probably buy a couple, you never want to be without a spare card!


I'm no expert when it comes to video lighting, I only do photography, and even then I'm not an expert. But as a techie, before buying expensive lights, I would just try to use some LED light bulbs in those stands you already have as they're a standard lamp socket, to get more light and less heat.

Perhaps something like these 20W bulbs? You can try any bulb as long as it has an E26/E27 base is no more than 45 watts.

Something like these LED flood lights might work since they're directional, but they're probably too wide to fit with the umbrellas on.


Getting that bokeh may be difficult. There are five factors that affect background blur, one of which is sensor size, obviously you're not going to buy a new camera, so the sensor size is a fixed value.

To get more background blur you need one or more of the following, a lower fstop on your lens, a higher focal length, to get as close to your subject as possible, and to get the background as far away as possible. So your desire for a wider lens is conflicting with your desire for background blur, and it sounds like space is an issue.

Additionally, since you have a crop sensor camera, lenses are really more zoomed (by 1.6x) in than they would be on a full frame sensor. So your kit lens, I assume goes down to 18mm? So on your camera that is more like 29mm (about the same as a smartphone camera).

I don't necessarily know if I would recommend a wide lens for your application since it will lead to less background blur and will exaggerate facial features when up close, as shown in this example. Although background blur may be impossible if you're in a cramped space anyhow. So if you're going to attempt a wide angle lens, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 looks like the best, most affordable option (I use Nikon gear myself, so I don't have personal experience), which is equivalent to a 16mm-29mm on your camera. However, that fstop number is higher than both your kit lens and 50mm, which means it lets in less light, which could be an issue.


Hopefully that information was useful and not too confusing. Feel free to ask for clarification if needed. Good luck!

u/Spearhartt · 3 pointsr/videography

So the hard part with your request is that you don't get much of the shallow DOF effect that you're going for with a wide angle. It is possible, just difficult.

Casey Neistat uses a 10-22mm Canon lens that seems to work well for him. I personally use a 10-18 Canon lens that works well for me during my shoots.

u/DSD-3 · 3 pointsr/guitarpedals

I have an 80D, same sort of deal. The current 24mm pancake lens from Canon does decently wide angles and has decent specs for the price (f2.8). It's like just over $100, like the nifty fifty. It's also great because of the low profile. A drawback for video is lack of image stabilization but I find it manageable at such wide angles.

Why do you want full frame? Just for the wider angles? I was considering this too not too long ago, and honestly, it's a whole boatload more money for something that composition and lenses can really help bridge the gap with and would be important for consideration no matter what gear you're using. Full frame is one of those things that I'd love to have down the line, but absolutely cannot justify given how amateur I am and expensive they get. Plus, pros use APS-C all the time. And M4/3 cameras are getting more and more popular and those are super cropped down compared to full frame and APS-C. I think there's a ton you can accomplish with something like a 70D... two people that I know who are actually making careers on this still swear by their 60D and use it all the time.

Another thing to consider for video is older manual lenses. I don't know how much you use autofocus, but older Canon, Nikon, Tamron/Vivitar, and other lenses can really be great buys on eBay, and I have to say that manual focus for video is a pretty useful thing to get down with and looks really great/artsy/whatever. These lenses can be really high spec for what they are and can be like $20, plus the cost of a converter for the EOS mount (like $9 I think).

I love this Veep clip, it perfectly summarizes how I feel when people with high end photo gear are condescending.

Obviously go for what you want, but really consider the practicality of it first. I definitely considered full frame at first because of the exact notion that people who use crop are amateurish, and then I realized (a) I am amateurish lol and that's fine and (b) no they're not and they can capture great photo and video.

If you are looking at wide angle stuff for crop, here's two more I know are good:

Just not super fast.

/u/HopefulUtopian helped me get some footing with video production basics so idk maybe he'll have more to add (he's one of those pro people, but not who I was referencing earlier about the 60D).

u/3nvygreen · 3 pointsr/videography

Seconding the kit 18mm as probably wide enough, but if you're wanting really wide at that price range - here's a Samyang 10mm 2.8 or if you don't mind not having as fast a lens (less DoF options and need more light) a Canon 10-18.

My advice since I own the same camera - if you don't have it already get magic lantern installed. If you have trouble PM me and I'll walk you through. It gives you new options with your camera. Second, if you don't have a fast lens, get the nifty fifty - canon 50mm 1.8 and consider getting the new canon 24mm 2.8. These are fast prime lenses that will 1, challenge you to work on framing your shots since you can't just adjust the zoom, and 2, let you open up for more light, practice things like pulling focus, get some 'cinematic' shots with subject in focus and the blurry background (bokeh). Then invest in audio. At the very least a dslr shotgun mic like the Rode VMP or if you have a smartphone you can use, something like a Rode Smartlav. Better yet, spend next to nothing and make one out of a headphone/microphone combo for cell phones like this one. Tons of DIY projects on the web. Buy a really cheap cam stabilizer or make one. Same for jibs. Make a skateboard dolly shot rig.

u/provideocreator · 3 pointsr/videography

The kit lens can get fairly wide, but it is limited to 18mm. I suppose if you have the lens, you want to go wider than that. 24mm isn't going to help to get your image less shaky. Your lens already covers that focal length, and the 24mm prime lens isn't image stabilized.

You'll get smooth footage out of a wide angle lens that is also image stabilized. For something wider than what you have, go with the Canon 10-18mm. That's a fairly inexpensive lens for what it is. It's made for Canon's EF-S mount, so it only works on the crop lenses like you have.

u/Bossman1086 · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

I have a Rebel T3i. I got my lens kit with it and was soon looking for more lenses, too. For cheap next lenses, two that I would highly recommend are the Nifty Fifty or the EF-S 24mm f/2.8.

The nifty fifty is a great lens and one that many pros even recommend. It's a good focal length to have to portraits and such and will work on even full frame cameras if she gets one in the future. The 24mm lens only works on crop sensor cameras (like the T5 your girlfriend has). But it's still a great cheap addition to her kit. I just used mine recently for a photoshoot with a model and the shots came out great. The focal length is good for portraits on a crop sensor. With the 50mm, I sometimes have to back away further than I'd like to frame the shot right. But the 24mm in the same situation doesn't limit me.

The 50mm also has the advantage of having a f/1.8. This allows some great shallow depth of field in the images she can take (blurry backgrounds) if she so chooses. It makes the subject pop more. Both are lenses I'm very happy to have in my bag. I don't think you can go wrong with either.

u/Simplyrowbear · 3 pointsr/canon

I’d say look at a Rebel t7i or 80D, and invest in some glass. You can pick up a 80D refurbished, 50mm, 24mm stm, a used Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC for under $2000 and that will be a solid base!

Refurb 80D Kit $779.20

50mm $125

24mm $149.

Tamron 70-200 used $799

$1853 Enough for some accessories

u/literallyanonion · 3 pointsr/canon

From what you're planning on using it for I think the t6i is probably going to be your best option. Some people seem to just be anti-Rebel, but honestly they boast a lot of features as long as you don't need a top lcd or lots of external controls. I still have my old t3i that is honestly one of my favorite cameras, especially for video. It's not the most advanced and is missing a lot of features that higher up canon dslr's have, but it's still a great camera.

I would definitely recommend putting more into your lenses than your body, and if you're considering upgrading to a FF sometime in the next couple years, it might be worth it to look for EF lenses rather than EF-S, since EF lenses are compatible with both crop sensors and full frame sensor bodies.

A favorite lens of many photographers is the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II because it has a nice range of focal lengths and is part of the canon 'L' series. However, it's priced accordingly and if it's not in your price range, that's completely understandable.

A very inexpensive lens that will give you much better results than the kit lens is the 50mm f/1.8 STM EF, which, at $120, is quite the deal. It's also featured on Ken Rockwell's Best Canon Lenses. It is a prime, meaning you can't zoom in or out, but I find 50mm to be a nice general focal length, especially for portraits and street photography. You might also consider the 24mm f/2.8 STM EF-S($150) for slightly wider angle, which can be nice on a crop sensor body. It's not compatible with FF cameras, but at $150, it's probably worth getting just for your t6i, especially if you aren't sure if you'll go FF anytime soon.

Check out Ken Rockwell's guide and maybe compare it to other guides online, there's a lot of people that have posted their favorite lenses or what they find to be the "best" lenses

Good luck!

u/blazefalcon · 3 pointsr/photography

Just got my first DSLR- a Canon 70d with the kit 18-135 3.5-5.6 lens- and I'm very interested in getting the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM lens. My only question is, there are listings for The lens itself for $125, then there's stuff like the lens with all kinds of accessories for $125 as well, even still from Canon. Reading the reviews, the accessories are far from the best, but is there really any reason at all not to get the kit?

u/bfordclark81 · 3 pointsr/Filmmakers

My favorite low cost investment when I started shooting live footage for underground bands was the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens (link below). By setting my shutter speed between 30 - 50 aperture at f1.8, and hopefully keeping ISO below 800. I was able to get a much better image than I was getting with my kit lens. Also, a mounted LED light will do wonders for you, as well.

Lens link:

u/aishiteru-wa · 3 pointsr/canon

Macro photography is one of my favorite things!
This setup is around $100 (50mm lens is optional and not part of this total) and a great place to start.

The extension tubes, when used on an (optional) 50mm lens, allows you to be anywhere from 21cm away from the subject, to 4.2cm depending on how you stack them :)

The lightbox kit comes with various backdrops and lighting. You can also use paper as a background if need be.

I also extremely recommend a tripod, when you're that close to the subject the depth of field becomes shallow. You may also want to set a timer that way pressing the shutter doesn't cause shake.

You'll probably eventually want an actual macro lens, as well as a better tripod for outdoor excursions, but if you're just doing this and staying in one place this is just fine :)

u/Enduer · 3 pointsr/photography

So your shutterspeed is low in dark environments? That's totally normal. The image is dark and so the camera is trying to leave the shutter open to collect more light.

You need a faster lens. Look into the nifty fifty if you'd like to take low light pictures!

Also, research the exposure triangle. I imagine it'll help you understand what's going on. Then you can compromise with your settings in manual to get a good picture.

If you don't want to do that, go into shutter priority mode on the camera (Tv), and set it to like 1/60. Your shots should stop being blurry but they may have ISO noise or be underexposed.

u/Harriv · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

Click number is probably the number of photos taken with the camera. There's some mechanics inside camera which will eventually wear (except in mirrorless cameras).

> 50mm 1.8

This is only 90$ as new, very good quality lens for the price:

Most cameras use these day CMOS sensor (as well as phones). Only color issues I can think now is chromatic aberration, caused by the optics. It can be corrected by using better lens or in post processing. Anyway, even the cheapest DSLR camera has much bigger sensor than any phone, which means better image. Modern phones do magic in the processing and of course newer sensors are better than ancient.

Here's some information:

iPhone 6 sensor is 17.3 mm², smallest DLSR format ("micro four thids") is 225 mm² and the sensor in the example Rebel t2i is 332 mm².

u/zclevenger · 3 pointsr/photography

Example of mine and this. I have this lighting kit because I bought it off of a friend for $50. I also have some diffusers and white boards as needed. My camera is a Canon t3i and lens is typically this. I just can't figure out how their light on the glass and can/bottle is so soft. Or maybe a lot of it is post processing?

u/greekplaya990 · 3 pointsr/Glocks

Im looking at getting the "new nifty fifty" 50mm from cannon to maybe have a better angle for me to work with than the stock Cannon T6s with the 18-135mm Lense. Would that help me get these close shots and angles and views? Im still learning so thanks for anyone's input

u/evan1123 · 3 pointsr/personalfinance

Ah, I misunderstood it as the amount you make from photography. Gotcha.

The big gotcha with the SL1 to 6D Mark II is that the 6D Mark II can only accept EF mount lenses. Your SL1 accepts EF and EF-S mount, and I am willing to bet that all of your lenses are of the EF-S mount variety. The easy way to tell is to check the alignment dot. EF mount has a red alignment dot and EF-S has a white dot. Purchasing the 6D would require you to purchase new EF lenses as well, since the 6D is sold as body only, and EF lenses generally come at a higher price. Right now, if you want an upgrade, I would focus on purchasing EF mount lenses and using them with your SL1. One to grab if you haven't already is the 50mm fixed lens. It's EF mount, so it'll work with the pro bodies when/if you upgrade you upgrade, and around $100, so it's a cheap addition to your collection that opens up many more creative choices due to its wide aperture.

u/rhinokitty · 3 pointsr/DSLR

Double check the fit, but I use one similar to this for a T2i and it's great.

u/k3v1n8t0r · 3 pointsr/AmateurPhotography

Thank you for the detailed feedback! I never thought I'd get this much help on this sub. I follow the rule of thirds pretty closely. I use a canon t3 currently. Just got into this hobby at the beginning of summer so I'm kinda just getting started. I don't have a laptop so I do everything on my phone. I use adobe photoshop express which I am still getting a grip on. I primarily use this lens: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens I also use a 75-300 mm lens.

Which leads me to an age old question I've had that I can't find the answer to. What am I losing going from the 50mm lens to the 75-300 mm lens?? You'd think the lens with more zoom would be more expensive but it's not. Can you help with that answer?

u/kabbage123 · 3 pointsr/videography

When I started, I had this lens for general shooting and this prime lens for when I did interviews/beauty/lowlight type of shots. That's a good combo to get you started.

u/Jardbot · 3 pointsr/PanasonicG7

I just picked up a Canon FD 50mm f1.8 for $20 and an adapter for $16. Of course with the crop factor it won't be 50mm but for $20 I thought I'd pick one up since everyone seems to love them.

My next pickup is going to be the 25mm f1.7 from Panasonic though. From what everyone has said on here it is a phenomenal lens for the price ($250)

Of course I don't have experience with them yet, but that's what I've heard!

u/p765 · 3 pointsr/photography

I have asked this question before but I am still as confused as I was when I asked it the last time. I am trying to decide between the 25mm and 45mm micro four thirds (so 50/90 for dslrs) focal lengths for a prime. I have taken shots at both focal lengths and I can't really decide upon which one to go with. I even tried taking a selection of the photos that I like the most from my collection and took a sum of the focal lengths and averaging it which gave me 35mm (70mm for dslrs). I am trying to get my first prime and I don't want to be disappointed once I buy it. I am looking at the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 ASPH and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8

Can someone guide me through how I would choose what is best for me? I already own a M.Zuiko 12-50mm kit lens but I am really looking for something that I can keep on the OMD EM5 all the time when I am travelling.

I have been looking up websites and reviews and everything and both these lenses seems to be good. Here is my instagram in case someone needs to see the kind of photos that I take. I only started a few weeks ago, so there's not much in there.

Hoping someone can help me with this decision.

u/Sthepker · 3 pointsr/Filmmakers

As an owner of both a 18-55mm lens and a 75-300 mm lens, I'd suggest those two. I've used the 18-135mm too, and I wasn't really blown away by it. The zoom isn't anything special, and the same thing can be achieved with the 75-300mm lens. Plus, you get a bag and tripod. If I were you, I'd look into shelling out an extra $120-$130 and invest in a 50mm prime lens, which can be found here:
as a DSLR filmmaker myself, I'd argue that the 50mm is probably Canon's best kept secret, since you can get some really beautiful looking shots for a fraction of the price of some of the other lenses out there on the market. Hope that helped!

u/RabidBlackSquirrel · 3 pointsr/guns

Old ass Nikon D80 with this 50mm

u/storyportal · 3 pointsr/rawdenim

I picked up this 50mm 1.8 lens for my Nikon. I grabbed a refurbished D3200 about two months ago (college budget, whooo). It's actually kinda funny - my camera doesn't have an onboard AF motor, but to pick up a lens was $100 more expensive to buy one w/ the lens-based AF motor... so I just bought the cheaper one and have been manual-focus bumblefucking my way through life.

It's a little tricky sometimes but also kind of interesting and fun? Shrug. Photography is like a tertiary hobby for me, after clothes and writing. I've gotten better since taking the 877 pics, I promise.

u/newdingodog · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

If you can afford both the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 I would buy them both. They both go down to 1.8 which means the aperture is open very with and will let a ton of light in. These are both prime lenses so they don't zoom but that is not as important as you probably think.

I am assuming here that you don't want to spend 1500+ on a fast professional zoom lens, that would also be okay.

The 35 mm is 200 and I just bought it myself:

The 50mm can be had for 131:

You can also just go with what you have, but you will probably need to crank the ISO up pretty high.

Suggested settings:

  1. Put the camera in aperture priority (A on the dial) and set it to the lowest number it will go. (1.8 on the suggested lenses, 3.5-5.6 on the kit lenses).

  2. Take pictures of the subject, look at the shutter speed the camera is choosing.

  3. Increase the ISO until the shutter speed is around 1/200 at minimum (if the subject is moving)

  4. Take some pictures with a higher ISO to get shutter speed at 1/400 just in case 1/200 was not fast enough. (1/200 should be plenty fast if they are not running and jumping all over)

    The reason for the suggested lenses is at 1.8, your ISO can be much lower than 3.5 and this will result in less noise. One last time: shoot raw if you can since it is a tricky situation. GOOD LUCK!
u/the_philter · 3 pointsr/pics

In my opinion, it is. Even though it's not 50mm, it seems to be the most popular choice for a second lens when people are first getting into photography, just like the nifty-fifty.

There IS this bad boy, though.

u/ParkaBoi · 3 pointsr/Cameras

Good choice. I started out with a Nikon entry level camera and I think it was a good choice.

If you have funds, I'd recommend getting a bag and a spare battery (third-party batteries are usually fine). A second battery is always the first thing I get when I get a new camera; nothing is more frustrating than having to stop shooting because your only battery has died.

Once you get used to the 18-55 kit lens, you might want to pick up a 50mm prime lens They're incredible cheap (<$80 on eBay) and the quality is very good. On the D3300 it will be a good lens for portraits.

And don't bother with one of those big accessory bundles, most of the stuff is complete crap. All you need is camera, lens, memory card, 2x battery (one spare) and a battery charger.You'll get all of that - apart form the second battery - in the box you've linked.

Good luck!

u/spisska · 3 pointsr/photography

I'd take your dad's camera down to the shop and get a repair estimate -- chances are all you need is a sensor cleaning, which is pretty cheap to get done.

Photography can be an absolute money sink, so it's worth making sure it's something you like before shelling out a ton of cash.

A 6.8 MP Nikon is still a better camera than 12 MP point-and-shoot, particularly when paired with a good lens. You'll be able to get images that blow up to about 16x10 without showing artifacts.

Given that this is a new hobby, I'd try to make do with the older body and invest in a good lens or two. Although price and quality are generally linked, you can find good lenses for very reasonable prices.

Also, get some books on photography or sign up for a class.

If you learn on what you have, you'll get a much better idea about what you need to invest in to get the pictures you're after. In two years, you can expect better electronics than these models for the same price.

u/flapjack_cooker · 3 pointsr/pics

This is a great lens - although depending on the Nikon body you have it may not auto-focus. You can get them pretty cheap, and if the AF thing isn't that big a deal to you, you'll have an awesome lens. I have this one on my D5100 and use it for night shooting all the time.

u/luminaeus · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

I'm going to assume this is your first entry into digital photography.

The camera body is fine.

The 18-55mm kit lens will take a decent to good photo in most circumstances. An external flash will improve your results in low light situations.

The 70-300mm will only be useful (hand held) in bright daylight because of it's narrow apeture and lack of image stabilization. A monopod or tripod will help. I'd also recommend a remote to further minimize vibration.

I highly recommend getting a nifty-fifty. I have basically the same lens on my Canon and it takes a higher quality picture than all my other lenses, some of which cost nearly $1000.

u/Tetimi · 3 pointsr/mycology

Thanks! I use a Canon Rebel T3i with their "nifty fifty" lens. It can be annoying for anything large since it has a fixed zoom, but it's my favorite lens ever for dark forest macro shots.
I have some more fungi and moss photos on my tumblr.

u/jeffster888 · 3 pointsr/berkeley

I've got that lens too. It's a prime lens, so you can't change the focal length, i.e. zoom. 50mm is near the same as the max focal length on the stock T2i lens. In exchange for not being able to zoom, however, the aperture is wider and the lens is capable of letting in more light, allowing for less noisy/crisper shots in lower light (and also sexier bokeh). Moreover, it's a really affordable lens (assuming letrainfalldown is talking about the same Nifty Fifty Canon lens that I have.

u/kelkulus · 3 pointsr/aww

I'll assume you're referring to how the closer part of the image is blurry and not directions on how to involve a puppy :) This is known as a shallow depth of field, which is common on lenses with large apertures. As a related example, when you see a portrait with the background all blurry but the subject in focus, it's known as bokeh. This was likely taken with a "prime lens", ie. one with a fixed length, and doesn't have a zoom feature. The cheapest way to get a shot like this would be to use an SLR and such a lens. For example, Canon has a 50mm f/1.8 lens for about $100 on Amazon.

u/PontiousPilates · 3 pointsr/canon

/u/asad137 is completely right about camera choice. Go for the older model. (It has the exact same sensor in it!) And you should have money for this lens. It was the best $100 I ever spent. It's perfect for portraits of family and friends. Here are two examples. (one) (two)

u/RedneckHippie111 · 3 pointsr/DSLR

If you are just getting started and have absolutely no gear, then this would be a good way to get into DSLRs. It has everything you will need to get out and take photos and learn what you need to learn before you start throwing big money at lenses and full frame sensor cameras.

I have the same 2 kit lenses for mine, and I shoot all kinds of video and photos (for money and for fun). I also have some extra gear that I have collected for video gigs through the years, like lights, stabilizing rigs, etc that help, but, it's not always about having the best gear, it's finding a way to make what you have work. You could have a $10k camera rig, but if you have no idea how to frame a shot, set aperture/shutter speed, color balance, etc, you won't get good results.

I would recommend getting this lens as well if you have the extra money. It is a great little lens for the price.

u/crappuccino · 3 pointsr/videos

You would be right -- a 5D won't take an EFS lens.

He may have been rocking an EF 50mm 1.8

u/cptsamir · 3 pointsr/photography

Wait, this lens? Cuz if its this, I am buying it right now.

u/jack_e · 3 pointsr/photography

Or get a much better value for the 50mm f/1.8.

u/Swampfoot · 3 pointsr/canon

Nifty Fifty, the 50mm f/1.8. Quite inexpensive.

Or if you wanna be Mister Big Shot, the 35mm f/1.4.

u/paynestaker · 3 pointsr/photography
  • Canon T3i $479.99
  • EF-S 24mm 2.8 Pancake $149.00
  • EF 50mm 1.8 $125.00
  • You still have $245 to get a monopod, bag, snacks, whatever!
u/RandomAlex · 3 pointsr/Filmmakers

Here ya go! This is what will really give you those beautiful, cinematic, dof heavy shots. I have this lens, but if you can swing it, it may be worth it to grab a similar lens but an f/1.4 instead. It'll give you just that much shallower of dof.

u/jseliger · 3 pointsr/photography

Given your shooting constraints, you might be better off adding the s95 if you have the cash. I have a t2i and s100, and I think of them as complements more than substitutes.

Also: what lenses do you have on your t2i? If you're not using a nifty 50, you should at least be thinking about experimenting with it.

u/smushkan · 3 pointsr/videography

You could get a GH3, however that wouldn't leave you much money left over for a lens, let alone all the other bits you need.

The camera is one of three parts that make up a quality production; you also need to consider sound and lighting.

If you're just experimenting, then you could go for this little combination:

u/AtticusDrake58 · 3 pointsr/DSLR

First, thank you so much for the clarification on the camera body, but are you referring to something like this?

u/Hynjia · 3 pointsr/photography

This is easily one of the best lenses you can get in my opinion. The 35mm prime is great for low light with that low f-stop like your buddy mentioned. It'll mean you have to move around and be active in composing shots since you don't have the zoom, but hey, you'll be at a concert.

For the record, I shot with only that lens on a d5000 for 5-6 months before I finally got a zoom lens. It's as versatile as you are.

u/ItsToka · 3 pointsr/photography

I went with the 35mm 1.8 lens as my first after the kit lens. $166 on amazon currently.

u/pierceham · 3 pointsr/EDC

In the box:

u/KallistiEngel · 3 pointsr/photography

I'm considering the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 myself since supposedly it's closer to being the equivalent of a 50mm focal length lens for a film SLR, any idea how it stacks up?

I've read some good reviews of it, but it's hard for me to comparison shop for lenses unless the reviewer is doing a side-by-side comparison.

u/bobbybottombracket · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Ask him for the serial number..

Bro, the lens is $200 bucks, get a new one. Don't pay $175 for this...

u/wearenottheborg · 3 pointsr/amazonreviews

This was a "question" about a Nikon lens

u/gh5046 · 3 pointsr/photography

Do you mean the 35mm f/1.8? I am not seeing a 30mm f/1.8 Nikon lens. It might exist, I'm just not familiar with Nikon lenses. Just curious.

If you want to retain the mood of the environment get a fast (large aperture) lens. If you don't care about the available lighting get a good speedlite that can overpower it and just use your current lens.

In these scenarios I have found I prefer a balance of available lighting and flash.

You can buy or make your own diffuser for an external flash. I made one couple years ago and have been very happy with the results.

u/parzivalsanorak · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

I've heard good things about the D7200. Personally, I still use a D3300 and while it has its drawbacks, those mostly concern comfort functionalities (burst speed, autofocus points, button layout, fixed screen). With regard to image quality, any halfway recent camera from one of the well-known manufacturers will do.

With a budget of 800€, what will you be able to get? Where I live, the D7200 body alone costs that much new, so no lenses, no accessories. I think it might be worthwhile to think about buying a D3xxx or a D5xxx Nikon or to consider buying used. Do note that those two series don't have an autofocus motor, so you'll only be able to autofocus with lenses that bring one (AF-S and AF-P lenses, but not AF and AI).

For street photography, the 35/1.8 DX is a popular lens. I can't recommend a specific lens for landscapes since I rarely do them, but generally, you'll want a wide-angle lens and probably a tripod. However, I'd suggest getting the camera with a kit lens first. There are few cheaper ways to get a general all-purpose lens to experiment. Maybe the new camera opens up new possibilities and you suddenly find yourself drawn to portraits or macros. You can always upgrade once you feel you can't comfortably work around the limitations of your current gear.

u/Words_Of_Prey · 3 pointsr/travel

I like the ones with people in them because it's something I want to get better at. My issue with shooting people is that I'm not good with focusing, so I have to stage people instead of capturing the natural moment. The variable focus on my Nikon is a bit clumsy for my liking, so I find it easier to have a fixed center focus then reframe it so that the object in focus is framed better (like this one). However, this is doesn't work very well if people move because then they're out of focus.

A lot of the evening shots in this collection would be tough to do on an old D70, though getting a better lens helped quite a bit. I now use this one and I was able to get pictures like this one. However, for every one shot like that one, I have a few that are blurry because even the motion of me pressing the shutter blurs the photo. I have to be very careful when it's darker.

u/griploner · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I own a D5300 with a prime 35mm lens and can honestly say it's a great camera for the price.

A sample shot located in Wales...

u/themadthinker · 3 pointsr/IAmA

A quick note on that lens: Nikon just put out a 35mm f/1.8 for $200 bucks, which has the nice addition of a built in AF motor. Great if you have a lower end Nikon SLR (D40, D60, D3000)

u/VIJoe · 3 pointsr/photography

Quasi-newbie myself with a similar rig (d5100):

  • One of the problems you will have the stock (kit) lens is the amount of light that you are going to be able to get indoors. I think the 35 mm 1.8 is a very fun lens for some inside experimentation.

  • My favorite books are Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure; Michael Freeman's The Photographer's Eye; and his The Photographer's Mind. I think the latter two are great introductions to the ideas around composition.
u/SnowHawkMike · 3 pointsr/photography

Thank you, I am glad that it's useful. I am the first to admit to people, although I learned and grew up using Nikon, my experience with their glass is limited since I no longer use their system. That's my longwinded way of saying take what I say with a grain of salt.

Having said that I find the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G to be one beautiful piece of glass. As good as the famed nifty fifty that Canon users love. Yes, you will get some light fall off with this lens, but stopped down that disappears. However who really cares, since you are most likely using it to focus in the center and not around the edges. And on a crop sensor I am guessing you are mostly using this for portraits, or similar centre focused shots.

The 35mm is just as good, if not better, seeing as how it's $50 less (MSRP), and on a crop sensor like in the D7000 it works beautifully as an all purpose lens. If you have the [cash for it]) I would say keep both in your bag, and use the 35mm for those times when you need a lens to do anything on the fly, and 50mm for more specific situations.

Another contender worth tossing into the mix, and this is what I use, is the Leica Summicron-R 50mm. It's the most used lens in my kit, and whether I am shooting film or digital I never leave the house without it. If you decide to pick one up look for the newer 3 cam version, and if you want to save some money do not buy the ROM version. Simply buy the cheapest good condition non-rom version you can, and send it to Leica to be upgraded to ROM for $325 if you really need that extra data.

If it's helpful here are links to the flickr groups for the three lenses I just talked about:

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g

Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2

u/DVDJunky · 3 pointsr/dvdcollection

Yeah, I've already got the lens I want... just need to save up for it.

u/psychedelianaut · 3 pointsr/LSD


Was shot on a Canon EOS Rebel T6 body, using a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX lens : )

u/kranima · 2 pointsr/photoclass2017

I recommend checking out the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G prime lens, I have a Nikon D5500 and I'm thinking about buying that lens next. Since it's 35mm on a DX sensor the effective focal equivalent to a 55 mm lens, which is great for everyday use.

u/insomniac_koala · 2 pointsr/iWallpaper

Let me know if you like any of the images from my instagram. I'd be happy to provide full-res wallpapers from it. 🤙

*Edit: For those interested in my setup:
·Nikon D7100
·35mm f/1.8

I'd like to reiterate the fact that you definitely don't need the camera I used to take this. You can get a cheaper camera with similar result. It's all about what glass (lenses) you have.

u/Minkalink4 · 2 pointsr/predaddit

The camera body is important for features and ease of use, but honestly the glass is most important. I had read extensively about Prime lenses and highly recommend that you look in to them as well. I purchased a $150 refurbished Nikor 35mm Prime lens from Adorama and I haven’t taken it off of my camera. It has incredible sharpness - a huge upgrade over the stock lens. The nice part about the Prime lens is that it has f1.8 aperture capability, meaning it can allow more light in to the sensor thus it works extremely well indoors and in low light situations without using the flash (which I find typically ruins more pictures than helps). I’ve used it with our niece and the lens does not blur indoors when she’s moving around or making faces since I can achieve a high shutter speed. However, the lens also excels with bokeh which is the background blur shallow depth of field. I use it for portraits as well.

The only downside to the Prime is that it’s a fixed lens and doesn’t zoom. I don’t consider it a disadvantage since I can zoom with my feet as they say. I wouldn’t use this lens for wildlife shots, sports, or a graduation, but its sharp images, low light/indoor capabilities, and versatility make it worth it.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/OmniaMors · 2 pointsr/photography

Both are super cheap new or used

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/wickeddimension · 2 pointsr/photography

> if someone could clarify the whole DX vs FX thing

DX are lenses made for crop, FX are lenses made for full frame sensor.

The vocal length is exactly the same. The difference is in image projection. Thisimage illustrates that. That means a FX lens will have to cover a larger sensor. Hence there is more glass in there and larger elements. That means its more expensive to produce.

Since a DX sensor is smaller you can use lenses with less image projection, hence cheaper cost. You can use either on a crop camera, and both will be 50mm equivelant field of field (35x1.5 = 50mm field of view).

The other cost difference comes from the quality of the lens and it's age. Higher quality optics produce sharper images, especially at the edges. Basically, good FX glass gets really expensive quick.


> point me in the right direction when it comes to purchasing my first lens

If you havent used the camera with the kit lens, start with using that. Dont buy new things for the sake of buying new things. The kit lens is designed to be a good entry level with various vocal lengths and usages. Use that for a while and figure out what you like. A faster (wider aperture) standard prime like the 35mm DX, or perhaps more reach with a 70-300 AF-P telephoto. You can't know what you want until you start taking photos and learn your camera and what you like to photograph.

That all said, if you are looking for a standard zoom prime like the 50mm is for FX cameras. Then this35mm DX is the one you want to buy. Here is a amazon link

u/Sluisifer · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Specify a dollar amount when giving a budget.

35mm f/1.8

It's a very common recommendation because 1) low price 2) fast aperture and 3) middle-ground focal range.

Now, you said you want to do landscapes, so it might be nice to have a wider focal length. In that case, I'd probably just go with the kit 18-55 zoom. It's pretty damn sharp, and you don't need a fast aperture for shooting during the day. You might look into getting a circular polarizing filter for that.

The 18-55 and 35mm are, together, a wonderful combo. Lightweight, small, inexpensive, and you get a mix of a useful zoom and a lens for low-light. Use the zoom when it's sunny, and the 35mm indoors and when it's dark.

u/gabezermeno · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

Well for the price of a 600d you could get a 35mm 1.8 and a Rokinon 8mm fisheye. You would have tons of fun with those two lenses.

u/amneyer · 2 pointsr/parentsofmultiples

I love my DSLR for taking pictures of the boys. I have the D3100 with this lens. I also have a point and shoot which I carry in my diaper bag, but my favorite pictures normally come from the DSLR.

u/soonami · 2 pointsr/philadelphia

First, I'll say, I've had my 35/1.8 for two and a half years now. It's awesome.

Honestly, it's so cheap ($200 retail) that you should just buy it on Amazon. You won't get much of a deal on one, I think the craigslist listing is for $185, and you have to drive or meet the dude somewhere. Buying new means that you know it wasn't abused, you can get the 5 year Nikon warrantee if something happens (non-transferrable), and you get it shipped to your door for free. Plus on Amazon, you can get a deal like a free $10 filter.

u/ennuied · 2 pointsr/photography

There are some people recommending getting a 1.8G lens, both 35mm and 50mm being mentioned. You would want the 35mm as it is equivalent to 50mm on full frame (non-DX) cameras.

It really is a great lens. Way worth the money.

It will give you the kind of shots you are looking for. I took this picture right after I got the lens.

u/jimrie · 2 pointsr/photography

well you could get close to the subject with the 35mm 1.8 if you want a tiny bit more space from your subject and less of a wide angle 50 mm1.8, but I think the best for you would be this 55-200. You could definitely use it for portraits and some amatuer action/sports/nature photgraphy, i use it all the time. if you've got the money then go for the 55-300 it might be a little softer and less crisp around the 250 mm+ range but I dont really have any personal use with it so i wouldn't know.

u/DeathStarJedi · 2 pointsr/photography

I would get this:

D3300 Body Only - $309

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G - $167

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 - $269

It's going to cost a little bit more money, but you can mitigate some of the costs by buying used. Just going from your options, I would probably go for the 70-300

u/clownpornstar · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm upgrading for ability to shoot video instead of carrying a camcorder to my daughters gymnastics meets. Usually in fluorescent lights.

Outside of that I primarily shoot nature and portrait type pictures. I use the 18-55 kit lens, plus I have this 35mm lens, and this 55-300mm zoom lens.

u/Disastermath · 2 pointsr/pics

Oh yah. Lenses are expensive. What brand are you? This seems to be a good macro for nikon (although it's not an official 'Nikkor' lens.). I'd like to get this 35mm but I haven't gotten the chance yet. Once you go past 200mm lenses, the price skyrockets, especially if you want an HQ brand like Nikkor or Sigma.

u/Ceofreak · 2 pointsr/photography
u/harrisonbeaker · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This lens rarely leaves my camera. Nikon makes terrific lenses at both the high end level and the entry level.

u/Rado_K · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

7200 is a great choice! 18-55 for landscape, 55-300 for wildlife, 35 1.8 DX for crispy shots and bOkeh and some extension tubes for macro. You'll see later whether you want spend thousands for better pro lenses. For start this should cover almost everything.

u/milkybuet · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

I don't have any real knowledge on Nikon lenses, but this 35mm seem to be very much within budget(500AUD = ~360USD), and has good reviews.

u/skiman50289 · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know much about any camera system besides Nikon, so that's what my answer is going to focus on.

If you've never owned a DSLR before, I would not buy a D7100 and cheap lenses. You'd be much better off getting a D3x00 or D5x00 and some better lenses/equipment. For about $750, you can get a Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm, and 35mm f/1.8 lenses (all new). This is a great camera, and the lenses will be great for almost everything you need. This also leaves you $250-$750 left over for better lenses (once you know what kind your shooting style requires), photography books, classes, travel, filter sets, a tripod (also something you'll want to research), etc.

Don't get hung up on having the latest-and-greatest gear. Almost anything produced by any manufacturer in the past couple of years will give you amazing photos if you know how to use it to its fullest potential.

u/jawebb2649 · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

Get the nikor 35mm 1.8. It is the one i use with my 3300, with the 1.5x from the base camera comes out to 52....ish mm
Ours really crisp, and my best budget lens. Here is a link Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/Buffalogriller · 2 pointsr/Nikon

The Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G is the best option for your camera, and perfectly within your budget.

Cheaper third party lenses have poor optical performance, and more expensive options are for Full Frame cameras, which makes the material and price go up, but has no advantage when used on your camera.

u/W0NDERMUTT · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I think the first decision you have to make is does it make sense to stick with Canon or would it be better long term to switch to Nikon. The two biggest factors I would consider is price and availability. Do you have canon-mount lenses readily available to purchase? Or is it easier to get Nikon products?

If you decide to stick with Canon the first thing i would do is buy another lens or two - NOT a new body. I started out with a Nikon D5100 kit with two lenses (18-55 & 55-300) and replaced my 18-55 pretty quickly. The kit lens was fine, but the lenses I did end up purchasing really helped my images to step up a level (linked below for reference).

  • Nikon 35mm
  • Sigma 17-50mm

    If you decide to switch to Nikon I would pick up a used body (best series you can afford) and a lens. I would not buy the D3400 kit, the lens is going to be comparable to whatever you have.

u/psyduckduckgoose · 2 pointsr/photography

In my opinion, the most important thing to understand first is the exposure triangle - that’s the relation between ISO, shutter speed and aperture and it’s what determines how light or dark your photo will be (each setting of course changes other things about the photo, but this concept is crucial to understand).

I’d recommend learning how to use aperture priority mode and shutter priority mode. The former will let you take control of the aperture portion of the exposure triangle while the camera takes control of the shutter and the ISO. The latter will let you control the shutter speed while the camera takes control of the aperture and ISO. This lets you focus on the composition and will guarantee that you get proper exposure. This is perfect for any “in the moment” shots and of course for landscape photos as well.

If you have the time, though, and the moment isn’t fleeting, get your tripod and put it into manual mode. Experiment with the 3 parts of the exposure triangle and see how each affects the result. You will have so much more control than any phone will give you.

However, if it’s something important or you’re going to miss the shot if you’re not quick, don’t be afraid of auto mode! It’s fine to use that and it usually does a pretty good job. Perhaps use the auto “no flash” mode, though.. on-board flashes suck in most situations.

Yes your camera is good enough! As I’ve found from upgrading, the camera body is more about durability and ease of access to controls. Lenses are much more important. As you learn more about the exposure triangle you’ll start to understand why a wide aperture (low f-stop number) is so important.. and maybe you will even want to buy one of these.

Hope this helps! I’m not an expert or anything, just self taught, but I’m happy to help if you have any questions!

u/theshriekingpines · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

It's a perfect starter. I use a d5500 for my hobby photography. I'm 99% sure it's the same sensor and everything as the d300--just has built-in wifi (which I hardly use) and a swivel screen (which I actually use a lot).

As far as lenses go, I have this lens here and 99% of my instagram photos were taken with that. I use my foot zoom a lot, and sometimes have to stitch together a grid of images if I need a wider angle, but the quality of picture over the 18-55mm kit makes it well worth it.

I would recommend getting a lens with a range (18-55mm or 70-200), just so you can play around with different framing...but I'm a firm believer that getting a solid fixed lens appropriate to your subject matter (landscape vs portrait vs wildlife etc) will make you become a better photographer.

u/brusifur · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX

2,200 reviews on Amazon and a 5 star rating. I love mine on my d5200.

u/EnclaveLeo · 2 pointsr/photography

Of course! It depends on your budget and what you want to photograph, but I highly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can find it used for even less than the price listed ($200) as well. The lens is really sharp and decent for landscape and portraits. You can set your 18-55mm to the 35mm focal length to see what it looks like.

If you want a higher focal length than your 18-55mm, look at the 55-200mm lens. It is a kit lens sometimes bundled with the 18-55mm. There's also a 70-300mm if you want the extra 100mm range. These are usually best for something you need to zoom in on, like sports and wildlife.

If you want something super wide, I recommend either a Tokina 11-20mm or the Tokina 11-16mm. The 11-20mm is the sharpest and fastest autofocus of the two, but it is slightly more expensive. They are both good lenses. These are great for astrophotography, landscapes, and indoor architecture shots.

Here is an example picture of what different focal lengths look like. I hope this was helpful! If you have any more questions or want me to clarify something, let me know.

u/davidddavidson · 2 pointsr/photography

I would advise avoiding those accessory packs because the quality is likely to be poor and it is more gear than you need at this point. I would however look into getting the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, a wireless shutter remote, and a spare battery.

u/Bester2001 · 2 pointsr/Cameras

So yeah get the D3300 and I'd recommend just getting the body and the Nikon 35mm 1.8 lense will give you much sharper images than the stock kit lense, plus the wider aperture will allow for more of a shallow depth of field (blurred background) and allows for pictures to be taken in less light without flash or tripod . And you can work up from there

From the 35mm I'd recommend this lesne next

u/Christmasham2 · 2 pointsr/photography

Some people are going way over the top with their responses, probably just because they enjoy boasting about dream gear that costs thousands and is completely irrelevant to you.

Look at either the 35mm or the 50mm, they are both obvious choices for new photographers because they're so cheap, yet pack a huge punch in image quality.

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

Both are priced very similarly, neither is particularly better than the other, I would personally recommend the 35mm as it's slightly more versatile.

yes there are a lot of other lenses out there, but you really don't need to think about them right now, as they'll either be far out of your budget, or designed for specialty uses, just get one of these, they'll do you well, trust me.

u/voiceofid · 2 pointsr/photography

the Nikon 35 f1.8 is a great lens for the value

The prime will allow you to think on your feet and zoom with your feet

the f1.8 will offer better low light and dof, and the weight/size reduction of the overall camera mass is noticeable.

My friend bought my old D40 and picked up that lens, it's been on his camera 95% of the time now

Here's a shot he took with the Nikon 35mm

edit: before he committed to it, I told him to shoot on his kit lens with 35mm only and see can he live with it. Make sure you are willing to deal with a non-zoom before committing

u/FreackInAMagnum · 2 pointsr/photography

I am looking to get a fast prime lens for shooting indoors in low-ish lighting. Would I be better off getting the 35mm or the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my Nikon D3000? Also, do you think it is worthwhile to pay extra for the f/1.4? I'm thinking I will get This . What is your opinion?

u/NJDestino · 2 pointsr/photography

Hello! First of all I wanna say that english is not my first language so apologize if I make grammar mistakes!

I'm planning a vacation trip to Japan soon and I need a camera. I'm learning that the nikon d3300 with the kit lens is great for beginners like me! The think is that I wanna take shots on the "blue hour", which means low natural light, playing with the cars light etc, that kind of thing. I was told that I need a lens with at least f1.8 for better light input, so the question is if this is a good one for starting since is not very expensive I think...

Thanks in advance guys!

u/TThor · 2 pointsr/photography

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

u/waterlooalex · 2 pointsr/photography

Buy a fast lens like the 35mm f/1.8 lens, and shoot at f/1.8 instead f/5.3, thats a difference of 3 stops, which means you could have achieved the same shutter speed at ISO 400 instead of using ISO 3200.

u/moker · 2 pointsr/photography

I just got my 35mm f1.8 lens in the mail yesterday for my new D7000, and I have to say I love it. The narrow DOF you can get with it is pretty amazing.

I really want to get a flash next, but I am torn between buying an SB600 and saving up for an SB900. The SB700 is also in the process of being rolled out, and sounds like a nice compromise, but half way between the 600 and the 900.

I have been also considering getting a 50mm f1.8, but some of the comments here make it sound like it's not worth it.

Oh, and I really want to get a circular polarizing filter for my 18-200mm lens - I take a lot of pictures of fish in ponds/lakes/rivers, and that would be quite handy.

[edit: corrected f1.7 to f1.8]

u/thelryan · 2 pointsr/Photography101

I'd recommend you this body with this lens. Nikon D3100 is a great starter camera, I used it for years and it's where I developed myself in portraits, landscape, and video like you were hoping to.

This lens is an excellent, versatile lens that'll give you crisp focus with a shallow depth of field for nice portraits and video footage.

u/rhcpxc · 2 pointsr/photography

Nikon D5000... here is a comparison between the D3000 and D5000 in terms of technical performance:

(Note: Copy/paste the link, I don't know HTML tags to make it work in the comments)

I have the D3000 because I didn't have much money at the time, but now I wish I had gone with a camera with better ISO performance. It really doesn't take much time to read up on aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, exposure, white balance, etc. You'll be glad you got a better camera once you expand your knowledge of photography, and you won't feel like you want to upgrade so soon.

After that, I got the 35mm 1.8 lens:
It is a great walk-around lens, very sharp/fast, and can cover a variety of situations. It augments your kit lens well, and enables you to photograph in dim/poor lighting conditions.

u/badjoke33 · 2 pointsr/photography

The 35mm 1.8G + 18-200mm VR will pretty much cover 90% of most people's needs. That's my plan, at least.

u/bigdaveyj · 2 pointsr/photography

That's really good, but you don't even need that! All you need is curtains, a reflector (Could just use aluminum foil) and a camera with the kit 18-55 lens. Then you can buy a reversal ring and it can turn the kit lens into a macro lens. You can get a Nikon D40 (cheap) and get the reversal ring (this) and it should do the trick for you.

Lots of food photography is done with a macro lens and natural lighting. If you google it, you can find a lot more information for it. If you want to go a step further, you can also get this: for even more DoF

u/constipated_HELP · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know if this link will work:

If not, search d70, go to used. There's one for $136 that's fulfilled by amazon (meaning you can use your card and it will come in 2 days for free).

That and this and you're in business.

u/skeeterou · 2 pointsr/photography

I would go with the 35mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.8 , and the 105mm 2.8 to get a nice range of semi-wide to telephoto.

u/GeoffPortnoy · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

Would getting a Nikon lens/adapter be a good idea as apposed to settling for a wider focus? This is what I'm looking at:



u/anonymoooooooose · 2 pointsr/photography
u/Maydo87 · 2 pointsr/photography

Well if it is NOT a full frame lens then you don't apply the crop factor.. in other words, if it says "DX" on it, then it IS a 35mm on your camera not a "50-55" (52.5 actually)

The (x 1.5) crop factor would only be applied if you were using a full frame lens (nikon brand full frame lenses are marked "FX")

Some quick notes each type of lens in relation to your camera:

DX lenses: fit your camera with no crop factor involved, are lighter and less expensive

FX lenses: are designed for cameras with full frame sensors therefor a crop factor of x 1.5 is applied making the effective focal length longer, generally higher quality lenses, they are also usually heavier and larger, better coatings on lenses more likely to have better weather sealing, can be used with new camera if you decide to upgrade to a full frame body.

For what you're talking about landscape and nature without switching lenses I'd say 35mm is a pretty good focal length.. you may find yourself wishing you had something just a little wider for the landscapes.. 24mm or lower would be more ideal for that in my opinion.. you could also look into getting a zoom lens if you really didn't want to switch lenses at all.

u/bastiano-precioso · 2 pointsr/photography

This is an equipment question:

I'm planning on buying my second lens (I only have the kit 18-55) for my Canon t3i.
M budget is around $160 since it was a present (gift card on Amazon).

I am a film student, so buying a lens that will also be good for video would be definitely a plus but not limitative.

I've been looking at the nifty fifty 1.8, of course, but also the 24mm 2.8 and the 40mm 2.8.

The Sigma 70-300 also falls in the price range, I know it is a different kind of lens, but I'm still unsure on what to get.

I checked the 35mm but apparently the difference in price from the Nikon to the Canon one is overwhelming, no clue why...even when the Nikon one is f/1.8 and the Canon f/2.

TL;DR: I want a $150 lens from Amazon and why the fuck is Canon's 35mm way more expensive than Nikon's?

u/UndeadCaesar · 2 pointsr/photography

I have a Nikon D5200 with the kit lens, and a 50mm manual focus prime. I have ~$750 to spend on lenses that I've saved up, and am wondering how /r/photography would spend it.

Currently, I have my eye on the Sigma 18-250mm telephoto and a Nikon 35mm AF prime, as the 50mm feels a bit too cropped for me and I've missed so many shots with that damn manual focus. That would get me in around $575, but wondering if there are better options?


u/phooton · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

The wife did not want me to buy this camera, so it is still in hiding. I have not been able to use it that much as a result, but the pictures I have taken so far have mostly been with this lens:

Regardless of the lens, my advice is read up / google your way to being knowledgeable with photography. Stuff like depth of field, exposure & the exposure triangle, and composition are probably the most important, but keep in mind I am not a professional by any means.

I remember reading that you should not buy another lens until you have mastered the ones you currently own, so that is good advice too I think.

u/navid_p · 2 pointsr/Cameras
u/av4rice · 2 pointsr/photography

> Do you know if there are any major differences between the D5300 and T5i Rebel bodies?

Feature-wise, they're fairly close direct competitors. The biggest differences are going to be in feel/ergonomics, like the reversed directions on stuff that turns.

> Lens. This is the lens that the store owner recommended:

> Nikon AF-S 50mm

The quality is good and you can get pretty shallow depth of field out of it. But it's a fairly narrow field of view on the format you'll be shooting. People tend to like it for portrait, still life, food, products. But most prefer wider for general use.

> the camera I checked out from school included this lens:

> Canon EF 35mm f/2

> I really enjoyed it, especially exploring the close depth of field. However, it costs twice as much so I understand I'd be sacrificing some features.

A 35mm would have more of a general use field of view for your format. Canon's 35mm is pricier because it's designed to cover a larger digital sensor or a whole frame of 135 format film, which is an advantage you wouldn't be using with an entry-level or even a lot of mid-tier bodies. Nikon has a cheaper 35mm f/1.8G DX that saves on cost by only projecting as big as the smaller APS-C size sensor you'd be using.

u/mcouldsee · 2 pointsr/cats

It's not a stupid question! Some lenses are incompatible with certain bodies. When it comes to auto-focus capabilities, some lenses contain the focus motor within the lens and others rely on the focus motor within the camera itself (which certain models do and don't have). The D3300 does not have a built-in auto-focus motor so you will have to purchase lenses that do. This would be the lens you need if you want auto-focus. It's a bit pricer, unfortunately:

I've been buying my lenses used off of ebay these days and you can save a lot of money this way. Check Craigslist too, since a lot of people sell camera stuff cheap. Don't be afraid to buy used since lenses are built to last forever. As far as the auto-focus feature goes, I personally prefer getting manual-focus lenses, but there is lots of appeal for auto-focusing your shots, especially if you want to catch images such as running kids or pets.

u/dietryiing · 2 pointsr/photography

I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 which is a great lens, especially for the price.

u/elevene · 2 pointsr/photography

Photography newbie here, can someone tell me the difference between:

u/totallyshould · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Ok, so it looks like you really like the wide angle of that 11-16, but it doesn't look like you have a fast lens at all.

The big obvious one is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G for well under $200. It will be a short telephoto on the DX, and a normal lens on a full frame body. It's small, light, fast, focuses well, it's sharp. Good lens. It is good for head-and-shoulders sitting across the table from somebody on DX, and on FX you'd get that shot but down to where their hand are resting on the table.

The 85mm 1.8g feels like an awkward and stupid focal length on DX. It's too long for a lot of comfortable people shots, and not really a long telephoto for stuff that's far away. Having said that, it's so sharp it will cut you, and on FX it's a very handy length similar to what the 50 is on DX. That's my two cents.

If you can stretch your budget a bit, the Sigma Art lenses are excellent for the money, and the Nikon 1.8 G primes (not just the 50) are quite good.

u/mwhaskin · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

It's this little guy: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens - Fixed

I also can't decide between this and the 50mm (but leaning towards this guy)

u/potato1 · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm having some trouble with photography of people (particularly cosplayers) at comic/anime conventions. I have the Rebel T5i and I got the nifty 50 for portraits, which it is amazing at, but I find often that I can't get far enough away from people (because the t5i is a crop sensor from what I've read here) to use it due to the crowded conditions.

Two questions: 1) Am I correct in that the solution is another fast prime with a shorter focal length?

2) If I am, what lens should I get? I'd like to spend no more than $300, but I could stretch to $500.

I've found these options, what do y'all think of them?

u/InspecterJones · 2 pointsr/photography

If you have the money consider getting the sony 35/1.8:

Maybe get it used if that's too much $$$.

With the crop factor it'll take the place of a "nifty-fifty" and is plenty fast enough to get good subject isolation. It's also stabilized so it'll help take pictures in lower light.

I'm also going to make an assumption that you're using the kit zoom and if that's so then a fixed lens will probably make you more comfortable coming from using your iphone and force you to process what you're doing more. The 35/1.8 is also significantly sharper than the kit.

Aside from that, setup your auto iso and you'll be able to just shoot in aperture priority pretty easily. If I remember correctly then you should be able to push up to iso 6400 with the a6000 and still be alright as far as noise goes.

u/xramzal · 2 pointsr/battlestations

I have an a6000, too. (You can see it in the pics). Absoutely amazing camera. I'd recommend the APS-C 35mm f/1.8 prime for the a6000. Incredibly sharp lens.

u/memelordluc · 2 pointsr/SonyAlpha

Sony SEL35F18 35mm f/1.8 Prime Fixed Lens This? Just want to clarify.

u/wily6 · 2 pointsr/photography

Sony does have new smaller lenses such as the 35mm prime and the 20mm wide angle which are tiny. There are also the two Sigma equivalents that are just about equal or better in quality but they are a tad larger but still not nearly as large as traditional DSLR lenses.

u/hellotherehithere · 2 pointsr/SonyAlpha

I can wait and if it seems like it's worth it I can probably stretch my budget out a little. I didn't actually realise the A6000 was almost 2 years old! (Feb 12 2014)

Is this the lens you mean?

Thanks for the advice!

u/WGeorgeCook · 2 pointsr/photography

The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is $300 and works pretty well. Since it's fast and manual you can control everything really well while still letting in a decent amount of light. However it's pretty heavy and 100% manual, so you probably won't use it for anything that you don't have time to shoot.

Otherwise, the Canon 10-18mm is nice and wide, especially for $300 also. It has IS and focuses really quickly. On the flipside it's really, really slow and doesn't have a focus distance scale marked on it.

u/shekkie · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

For years Canon had a nice lens (still available) that was 10-22mm focal range. It wasn't budget but you could find them used easily enough.

Now they have an actually budget level zoom with a 10-18mm range

u/DriftwoodBadger · 2 pointsr/photography

Having to step back to get a building in frame is not your sensor size, it's your lens. The RX100 looks like it is a pocket camera with a fixed lens, so you get what they give you. The SL1 can have the lens removed and replaced with different styles of lenses for different purposes. What you'd want is a wide-angle lens like this:

Edit to add: The SL1 DOES have image stabilization. The difference is on the SL1 and lens-removable cameras in general, the stabilization is in the lens, not the camera body. The default lens options that comes with the SL1 has image stabilization built in.

u/SC-Viper · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

Canon user here.

It seems you know exactly what you want to do and a $1,000 budget is a great start. I would look into getting a crop sensor camera, they're much cheaper than full frame cameras, granted you'll need to take a few steps back to compensate for the crop factor. You can learn more about the differences between crop sensor and full frame cameras here.

A big difference between crop vs full frame is the price point. A crop sensor is going to cost you around $300-600 depending on whether you buy new or used. A full frame will set you back around $800-$1000. You can actually pick up a 5DMK2 (body only) for around $500-650 on Craigslist nowadays. I bought mine for about $1000 3 years ago and it's price has significantly reduced since, but you may end up getting one with a higher shutter count.
I would recommend looking into Canon's line of EOS Rebel cameras such as the Canon T4i or the Canon T5i. They will run you anywhere between $300-400 for the body alone. Great starter cameras for anyone looking to learn photography. I started off with the T3i and had it for about 4 years before upgrading.

You're also going to want to save money for lenses. Since you're looking to landscapes, star trails, etc.. This makes your search a lot easier. You are definitely going to need a wide angle lens. Something like the Canon EF-S 10-18mm or along those lines. Lenses can be very expensive and with just a budget of $1000, it's going to be difficult to get one that matches your every need. I would recommend do some research to find a lens that best fits your need.

u/chuby1tubby · 2 pointsr/caseyneistat

That's the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens. $299 on

It's supposedly the only lens he ever uses for every one of his vlogs.

u/dufflecoat · 2 pointsr/Cameras

I'd get the Canon 10-18mm with IS for similar money. It goes wider, it'll autofocus and it has IS. Plus it's a little lighter - I think it's a better match for your camera.

u/abdulatwork · 2 pointsr/photography

I preface by saying I know almost nothing about photography.

My gf has a Canon Rebel T2i and recently we went on vacation to Iceland where she commented she wasn't taking the best pictures because she only had a kit lens.

I wanted to get her something around the $300-400. What would be the best bang for my buck? She likes doing wildlife and landscape photography.

I see these two lenses, are both of them together a good deal?

Zoom lens

Landscape Lens

Is there another lens in that price range that would be better than both of these combined?
Also, is it worth it getting a lens for a T2i, she was commenting that it was a beginner camera.

u/notaneggspert · 2 pointsr/Cameras

I would buy 7DII over a 6D in a heartbeat hands down more versatile. But I encourage you to buy an older camera since you're just starting out the

BUY THIS 7D with a low shutter count only $600. Still a hell of a camera to start with, lenses are more important.

Canon 10-18mm lens $300

Canon 50mm f/1.8 $120

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 $650 OR buy a 70-200mm f/4 IS L lens USED off FredMiranda, or buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkI L USED off FredMiranda I got my f/2.8L mkI for $1,300 last year the MKII goes for $1,900 or so used but wasn't worth the $600 for me.

Card reader $18

Then get some Sandisk 16gb or 32gb cards

Other stuff to think about:

Canon 85mm f/1.8 $360

$130 Flash

Tripod $200

Canon 50mm f/1.4

Big purchases way down the road

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII L $2,200

A 300mm f/2.8 or even f/4 wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot for either if you really want to do wildlife but not spend over $6,000 on a lens

Canon 1.4 teleconverter $500 this only works with L lenses buy this way down the road if you need more reach.

Canon 16-35mm or 17-40mm L lens

u/turnerhooch · 2 pointsr/photography

Thanks for the response. 90% of the photographs will be for the website, but there is a trade magazine doing an article on us in the near term. Basically, I need high quality images similar to what we have on our site: It will be a mix of wider shots of the cabinets in the room with the occasional closeup shot of particular cabinets.

I would prefer to shoot with a tripod and no flash, as that seems more in line with my experience level, has a quicker setup time, and makes nice images.

I'm thinking about getting the Canon EF-S 10-18mm

u/schming_ding · 2 pointsr/canon

Hmm, we'll I'd buy the 24mm lens new, which is $130, then get the best Rebel kit you can afford, which would be the T6i it sounds like. The kit would come with a basic zoom lens as well. Consider buying an even cheaper, older Rebel used (such as T3i) if you're not sure about photography as a hobby. Also consider the Rebel SL1 for it's tiny size with the 24mm attached.

u/xiongchiamiov · 2 pointsr/photography

Step back! Generally lenses are made with the same equivalent field of view for different sensor sizes (for instance, m43 is a 2x crop factor, and we have 17mm, 25mm, 40mm lenses instead of 35mm, 50mm, 80mm); the only time you should be running into field of view issues that using a more appropriate lens won't help with are when you get into super-wide angle. And if you're looking at doing portraits, you should be far away from that territory, since wide angle lenses will produce unflattering photos.

Since you're on an APS-C sensor, your 50mm lens will be more equivalent to an 85mm lens on a full frame, which is a pretty good focal length for portraits. If you want more environmental portraits, you might try something like the 24mm f2.8 (some photos on flickr here and here).

u/kake14 · 2 pointsr/canon

This could be a good pick. Wide enough for landscapes and group shots. Light, cheap, and sharp too. Only it doesn't have IS which could be a deal breaker if you're doing filming.

u/Chexjc · 2 pointsr/photography

Check out the Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM. It's only $175, sharp, has STM (which means quiet focusing for video purposes), and it's a convenient focal length for video.

u/orangelantern · 2 pointsr/astrophotography

Hey all. Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

I've seen some decent pictures taken with it, and for only $125 (-20 if you get a rebate) it seems pretty good.

u/Dirtylicious · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

why not spend much less on the f 1.8 instead and save the extra 4 bills for a better lense

u/word_up_yo · 2 pointsr/shootingcars

50mm f/1.8

I really love this lens. It takes fantastically sharp pictures and has a wonderfully shallow DOF. You have to be rather far away though to capture entire cars within the frame so it can be a pain in the ass for shooting car meets or shows where lots of people are present and cars are packed in close together. For situations like that, I'd recommend this:

24mm f/2.8

u/Talki · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers
u/thesecretbarn · 2 pointsr/photography

Check out /r/PhotoClass2014 and start working through it. You'll be astonished by how quickly you'll learn how to figure this out on your own.

It's not impossible to get similar-ish photos with just the kit lens if you know what you're doing.

The quick answer you're probably looking for: Buy this. Stick it on your camera. Put your camera on Av mode, turn the dial until you're at f/1.8, set your ISO to Auto, and make sure you're shooting in good light (sunset/sunrise/or brighter) to avoid graininess.

Trust me, take a week to start on the photoclass lessons. You should know why you're buying something before you do, so that you know how to use it effectively. Otherwise you're very likely be disappointed and won't know how to get the results you want.

u/Matronix · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon
u/anidal · 2 pointsr/photography

Canon's offering shows better MTF resolution on borders than Sigma. If buying for a full frame sensor, this may push you to buy Canon. If you have a crop sensor, the Sigma may suffice.

Last I checked, Canon seems to be offering it's lens for much cheaper than Sigma.

Correct me if I'm missing something, but it seems to be a no brainer for Canon 50mm f/1.4 to me.

u/stufoonoob · 2 pointsr/chicago

The $100 50 mm lens is great. Takes some getting used to, having to zoom with your feet and all, but the quality is insane. I took this and this with the lens. However, it does have its drawbacks. I really would have liked to get a crisp shot of your skyline, so this just inspired me to cough up the money for the 50 mm f1/4. The f/1.8 is a great start though.

u/Confused_Midget · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

There's no Canon 50mm f/1.5, there are only f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2.

u/JohnnyZondo · 2 pointsr/funny

about $350.

im not sure if its worth the exra $250 for just and extra f.4, unless you really need the extra sensitivity in low light...

u/jessemaner · 2 pointsr/photography

What is the reason for price difference between these two lenses
Lens 1 & Lens 2

u/leebd · 2 pointsr/guns

I've got a Cannon T3i and assuming your kit lens doesn't get bashed in by Delta Airlines baggage handlers like mine was your next best lens should either be a 50mm or in my case I've been considering This baby. Keep an eye on lens release dates too because if something has been on the market for a long time it could be possible that the new version is about to come out and you can pick up previous iterations for cheap. I got my 50mm f1.4 for pretty cheap that way however the new lens that came out replaced the old f1.8 at the time.

Another good source for gear is craigslist since a lot of old film camera lenses and most of the gear will work on DSLR bodies. Unfortunately the lenses won't have auto focus or image stabilization but if you are taking scenery shots or pictures of things not moving they can be great.

Lastly if you are looking to get all fancy with your pictures you might want to consider buying a copy of Lightroom or signing up for Adobe's subscription service for Photoshop+Lightroom for about ten bucks a month. Personally for my value I just bought the straight license instead of the Creative Cloud because I can go a few months between actually needing the software.

u/chrono14 · 2 pointsr/gaybros

Canon EF 50mm 1.4.

That being said BUY from a reputable dealer. BHPhoto, Adorama, Photoline, Amazon, Best Buy, those would be good places.

Some random place on the internet showing the lens for much cheaper, not a good place. There are scams with photography equipment from a place that owns many sites. They show their prices as much lower and when you order they call you to "confirm the order" and by confirm I mean they say things like "Well that version doesn't have the metal month, but this version for $80 more does, it also comes in a kit with blah blah".

Do not order from these places. Not only will you pay more or they won't give you the item (but they have your CC info) but you'll get a "grey market" item meaning it has no warranty.

EDIT: Here's the one you want, it's $350 after a post purchase rebate:

u/smryan8076 · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

I would go with the Canon 50mm 1.4 - it is $300 exactly, it is IMO one of the best values in terms of bang for your buck/image quality and you will have lots of fun early on playing/learning with the wide range in aperture settings. Have you seen pictures where the subject stands out against a blurry background - amongst other variables, you get that at lower aperture values, 1.4 being the lowest for this lens. It will not help you much with wildlife, but it is a GREAT first lens to start learning with. One important thing to understand is this is not a zoom lens, it is a fixed focal length lens which means if you want to get closer to an object, you don't zoom in on it with lens, you walk closer to it with your feet.

u/derrelicte · 2 pointsr/Android

Just being a completely non-serious devil's advocate here, but if I had a 1D, I don't think I'd mind slapping this lens on it:

But yes, I do see your point

u/michaelje0 · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

I've made due with this one, as it's good for the $100 range, but the focus ring is tiny and there's no distance indicator thingy. Again, I've done okay with it so far.

EDIT: Here's my videos, I believe I used the lens in most of the Toy Bombs video and anywhere in my videos where there is more depth of field. Sadly, I didn't use it in the Slenderman video, even though it was night, because I needed to zoom in and out quickly and it's in Las Vegas so, there's light everywhere. Just remember the 50 would have looked way better there.

If you can spend $400, this one has a better focus ring, the indicator, and it lets in more light so you can shoot at night a little better. I have a short that I recently shot using this lens (borrowed) but I haven't released it online yet. (waiting on music) We shot at night using only streetlamps and reflectors and it worked great.

EDIT: Sorry, I can't link the video, since it's not done, but here's a screengrab from Youtube:

u/enanup · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I think the 50mm L lens you were looking at was the f/1.2 one, not the f/1.8? There's a f/1.4 in between them also

That means it lets in more light, therefore is more expensive. The focal length is the same, it's just faster. The faster the lens (the lower the f-number), the more expensive it will generally be.

There are some faster zoom lenses that are f/2.8 but they will be much more expensive than the kit lens and imho it would make more sense to buy different focal lengths primes if one needs that much variety.

u/Brothernod · 2 pointsr/photography

I bought this when I was still fairly new and was shocked at how much better photos looked compared to the kit lens.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras

Used they go as low as $500.

u/videoworx · 2 pointsr/videography

You're not going to have a constant use for 85mm prime with that camera (which works out to 136mm), unless you intend to shot lots of talking heads. Additionally, the lack of image stabilization means you can't even breathe on the camera during takes. For on location shoots, it's not the best investment.

If you want a fast, practical prime, get Canon's 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. On your body, it's right between a wide angle and portrait lens, so it'll work in many more situations.

If you want a cheap, but excellent zoom, check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, and compare it to Canon's 24-105 f/4. You won't see any difference with video footage at 5.6, and because the Tamron can drop to 2.8, you can be a bit more flexible with lighting.

EDIT: although I've never used it, this is considered the best crop-body zoom you can get, and, like the 24-105/24-70, it's flexible enough that you might not need much else.

u/digital_evolution · 2 pointsr/photography

Purely speaking on brands:

  • Canon - Best of the best for Canon cameras. L series means it's more rugged. Also very pricey!

  • Sigma - Great brand - my second choice. Save money here.

  • Tamron - Interesting brand - I own a 70-200 F/2.8 lens and it works fantastic - there are some issues with slower focusing but you don't notice it unless you're trying to capture sports or moving objects (I tried it on motorcycles on a track and I couldn't track my focus as well!)

    I recently did a lot of research into starting lenses and here are my suggestions :)

  • 50MM 1.4 Canon (Save money - get a used 1.8 - this is a must buy, it's cheap)

  • Canon EF S 17-55MM - This lens is a bit pricey, see below to save money. Totally worth it. Remember your crop ratio on lenses, I'll assume you have 1.6 like I do on my 550D which would bring this lens to a '20-70' (not stopping to do math lol)

    This lens is used for 'walking around' you can get some wide angle and some good portraits with it. It's very flexible.

  • Cheaper Tamron alternative to the Canon above

  • The baddest mo-fo, the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS L II

    This lens is very pricey. Look at Tamron to save the most money (I vouch for it) or Sigma for a little more, but less than the Canon.

    Remember with crop ratio that changes the FL of a lens! Figure out if yo have one or not.

    Simple rules of thumb? Save money. Wherever possible. But, always get the best glass you can afford. Glass is greater than body.

    Hope this helps - if it does please pay this comment forward, it took a lot of typing so feel free to share with other people in similar questions :D
u/djwork · 2 pointsr/photography

I would recommend a EF-S 17-55 2.8f if you go for the 7D (will not work with a 5Dmrk2)

It's not a L series but for the price it is an excellent lense.

Edit: It is also an easy lense to use as it has a constant apature (how much light comes it to the lense) through its whole zoom range.

u/ch00f · 2 pointsr/guns

That's with the kit lens. I'm using the 17-55 IS USM

u/airblizzard · 2 pointsr/photography

If you need a fast wide angle, check out the EF-S 16-35mm f/2.8. It's like the 16-35mm, but about $500 cheaper since it's designed for crop sensors. There are also a few fast primes like the Sigma 10mm f/2.8

If you're shooting in a lot of low light situations, I don't think f/4 is going to be enough.

u/rjcarr · 2 pointsr/photography

As everyone is saying, buying good glass is a great investment. Keep in mind though that the L lenses are very heavy. And if this is going to be your primary lens also keep in mind that 24mm isn't very wide on a crop sensor.

Unless you want more zoom a 17-55 f/2.8 might be a better option:

Everyone I know that has one loves it. The only issue is it's an EF-S mount, but if you're just buying your first real lens my guess is you won't be getting a full frame anytime soon, and could resell this lens very easily.

u/LaLapinRouge · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I'm a Canon shooter, and the lens that's on my camera most often is my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have the older version that lacks image stabilization, but I don't miss that too much. What does frustrate me is how much my lens hunts for autofocus in low light. I've shot with Canon's 17-55 and found it to be much, much better in this regard.

With this in mind, and a $600 budget, you may want to pick up a used Canon 17-55 2.8 on the high end of your budget.

(Edit: derped and thought you were a Nikon shooter, updated with Canon info)

u/moopreader · 2 pointsr/photography

Excellent timing! I've actually been looking at the non-L Canon 17-55/f2.8 with IS. It's pricier than the L you mention (?!!), AND it's only an EFS, of course. But its USM AF motor blows my Tamron's screechy, plodding AF out of the water, its range (27-88) is marginally better and it has IS.

Confusion reigns at the moment. Upgrade body and buy an out and out lens upgrade, or just upgrade to somewhat better lens.

u/InactiveBeef · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Buy used and save some money. Skip the kit lens if it makes a big financial difference because they're generally trash. Pick up a nifty fifty and maybe a third party zoom. This can be applied to any of those cameras in your list.

Now, for my advice. Do you have any friends/family who do photography? It might be beneficial to buy into their manufacturer so that they can help explain how to use your camera and you can borrow lenses. At this level, they're all about the same, though I believe that Nikon has slightly better ISO performance.

I'm a Canon guy myself. I'd recommend a T6i, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and if there's any money left in your budget, a 50mm f/1.8. All used. You'll be very happy with that setup, I think, and the lens will cover a good chunk of the normal focal range until you get a feel for what you want to shoot.

u/ja647 · 2 pointsr/photography

Saying "I shoot manual" is false bravado.

If you want to control the depth of field, shoot aperture priority.

If you want to control/stop motion, use shutter speed priority.

I think your best bet in a lens would be a Nikon or Tamron 70-300. Be sure to get the VR (Nikon) or VC (Tamron) version. Used they are around $300. [Link here.] (

Used from a reputable seller is fine.

u/briguy19 · 2 pointsr/photography

What type of photography are you using it for? Those 70-200s are crazy expensive for a hobbyist. If you're taking pictures outdoors during the day, something like the 70-300 4-5.6 will be good for under $600. I actually bought a used copy of the Tamron version of that lens for $250. Make sure you get the one with the IR/VR/VC, thought. All 3 manufacturers make a cheap (~$150) version of the same lens that's pretty bad.

u/LV426- · 2 pointsr/photography

What's a good zoom lens that won't break the bank for an amateur photographer (will probably use it to photograph wildlife on hikes, etc.)? My budget is about $500. I'm looking at this Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. The general consensus seems to be that it's quite good up to 200 and then isn't so great after that.

Are there any better alternatives? (I'm looking at the used market as well, and the above lens is about ~$350 there, and my camera is a D5600).

u/PeperonyNChease · 2 pointsr/Nikon

This 70-300mm will give you plenty of reach. From what I understand it's a pretty good zoom lens for the price, although a bit large. It should be a step up from the cheaper version. On the other hand, the 55-200mm is a budget option and a good compliment to the kit lens, however I have to say the build quality is very cheap. I don't really like using mine because it feels so plasticy. The optical quality is solid, though.

You could also get a superzoom like the 18-140mm. That will give you a ton of range in one lens.

u/cjvcook · 2 pointsr/photography

stretching the budget to the 70-300 VR gets you a step up in image quality and focus speed:

You'll struggle with this indoors and night games though to, you really need a fast lens for that.

u/SickSalamander · 2 pointsr/photography

Get a 70-300mm VR instead. You can get a refurbished one for $340. That is well within your budget.

u/Evanescent_contrail · 2 pointsr/birdpics

Thanks, that's useful, I agree. Yes, that's the lens (specifically this one).

I'm probably a ways off from a completely new zoom, although the 500mm lens looks real nice.

u/NuStone · 2 pointsr/photography

Hey, all.

I'm heading to Israel in a couple of months and have never been before. I'm extremely excited to do as much shooting as possible while there, but I'd like to make sure I have the gear to take the best advantage I can.

I own a Nikon D3400 camera with a kit lens I hardly use. I also own a Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G prime lens that I use for most of my shooting. I mostly do portraits and street photography, though I'd also like to do more architectural / landscape photography while in Israel. What I'm looking for is a recommendation on what kind of lens would be best for this kind of work, and perhaps even a specific lens that would fit what I'm looking for - budget is at most around $600.

This is what I'm looking at right now.

Thanks for any advice you can give!

u/magus424 · 2 pointsr/photography

I hope you meant $200 for the 55-250mm, that is not a $300 lens :)

I got it with my kit and while I haven't taken many photos with it yet, it seems decent.

u/Eponym · 2 pointsr/photography

Regardless of your reasoning, it sounds like you want to compress the elements in your scene so distant objects appear closer (larger) to the foreground elements (like the bridge). This can be accomplished by using telephoto lenses. Look into getting the 55-250mm.

u/jd3302 · 2 pointsr/wallpapers
u/Alexhasskills · 2 pointsr/photography
u/t0ny7 · 2 pointsr/photography

Here are the two cameras compared.

I have the T2i and I love it. The T2i can do 1080p HD video and the D80 can't.

I would suggest getting the 55-250 lens because it has IS which makes a big difference. I've heard the image quality of the 70-300mm lens is not as good as the 55-250mm lens. And its not that much more money.

u/scyshc · 2 pointsr/photography

hmmmm since she was looking for superzooms, I don't think she'll appreciate the 50mm as much because she already has that field of view, same goes for the 24mm. The only advantage they have for her would be the wider aperture, helping her with low light situations.

You could get her a fisheye lens like the Rokinon 8mm f3.5 but honestly you take fisheye lenses for maybe once or twice and you get bored with it. You could also get her a macro lens, but again, those are one trick ponies. Unless you see her trying low light photography and/or playing with depth of field, don't think primes would suit her at this moment. Primes generally are better performing, but I think she values versatility more than that little extra performance that you get out of primes.

Sounds like she could like the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lens. There's three versions of this lens (but don't bother with the first one). second one is bit cheaper at 195 new. third one is more expensive at 300 bucks new, but it has quieter autofocus, instant manual focus (meaning you don't have to bother with the AF to MF switch to get manual focus, you just turn the focus ring) and it can focus a bit closer than the second one (second one focuses up to 3.6' or 1.1m, third one focuses up to 2.8', or .85m).
It's not a big difference, but you do get a slight bit more functionality for that extra dough.

Well I hope you look into my suggestion. And tell her the first photo with the trees is fantastic!

u/Momgrapher · 2 pointsr/photography

I am looking at 3 inexpensive lenses and I think I may have found the one. Haven't yet checked BH for some reason....(just realizing this now) anyway here they are. I think the refurbished STM is the best option.

STM 55-250

USM 75-300


I am very new but really want to play with something with range. I currently have a 50mm fixed. I love the pictures I get but either skill or the lens isn't allowing me the shots I want. Maybe both.

u/koprivamedia · 2 pointsr/memes
u/Danzarr · 2 pointsr/photography

200 and above?

PhaseOne IQ250, or if they dont want a studio camera, how about the sigma 200-500 f2.8?

u/Hockeyfan_52 · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I found the perfect lens for you. It's cheap, compact, light and a focal range that you don't have a lens for.

u/intelati · 2 pointsr/aww
u/reddittrees2 · 2 pointsr/pics put this into a little perspective....those sights cost almos as much as a Sigma 50-500mm telephoto lens. $1500 for this sexy thing:

Of course you could always get a little crazy and go with the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX at $25,000

u/seis_cuerdas · 2 pointsr/pics

If haven't read the Amazon reviews for this lens, I strongly recommend it.

u/gnuguy99 · 2 pointsr/photography

Sigma 200 - 500 F2.8 + Nikon D800

Means I can finally get some good shots at my kids baseball and soccer games.

u/MaliciousHH · 2 pointsr/unitedkingdom
u/mihirpatel14 · 2 pointsr/PanasonicG7

Nope. Actually, comparing our lenses a bit more closely... I have a different model lol. This is the one I have
Sorry--I guess I glossed over the zoom specs (the 24-70) and just went by appearance. Nevertheless, great lenses!

u/James955i · 2 pointsr/canon

I wonder if there are different versions if it, this is the one I have

Sigma 583306 17-50mm f2.8 EX...

u/groovel76 · 2 pointsr/auroraporn

Are you using a kit lens? If so, recommend upgrading to a better lens. I have a sigma lens that I’ve been quite happy with. It’s just an all around lens. Nothing specialized. I also am using a rebel T3. If you can afford it, look into lenses with even higher f-stops. Anything to reduce the time you need the shutter open.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera

Would really recommend a tripod and a remote shutter to minimize camera shake. Even pressing the shutter button can jostle the camera enough to ruin a photo. You can use the timer but that can slow you down and you might miss a good shot

Pixel RC-201 Remote Shutter...

Regarding focus. Plan ahead. Get your focus prepped during the day by focusing on some thing far off like mountains. Then lock that down with tape or something. Also turn off auto focus. If the lens has image stabilization. I’ve heard that if your camera is already stabilized, the stabilization in the lens could work against you because the components in the lens are allowed to shift in anticipation for shake.

Get rid of light pollution. Turn off your display and don’t use your phone. Get your eyes as used to the dark as possible.

Hope these help.

u/Airazz · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

50mm F1.8 is an obvious first choice for a prime lens. As explained by others, a prime lens is a lens with no zoom, it's fixed. It works beautifully in low light and it's perfect for portraits.

It's also cheap (Canon sells them for just a bit over $100), so it's a good starting point if you don't know what you want.

I also bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 as a replacement for my worn out kit lens.

The lens you're asking about is the cheapest versatile lens, that's why it's included with most consumer-grade cameras. It's really simple, it won't last very long, but it's cheap and it does the job. Mine started getting a bit loose, not focusing on auto mode properly after some 30k shots. I was working as a news photographer at the time, so this was like 2 months. For a home user this would take like 2 years, maybe even more than that. It's definitely not a bad option, though. You can take beautiful shots with it.

When it comes to photography, it's 80% skill, 10% gear and 10% luck. Don't buy expensive lenses hoping that they'll magically make your photos look better. It's the other way around, you need to learn to make beautiful photos first. Then you'll see where that lens is lacking, then you'll know what you need to buy. Don't waste money.

u/Srirachafarian · 2 pointsr/photography

It will be good for planespotting and wildlife (if that's what you mean by "natural"). I don't think 28mm is as wide as you think it is, especially on that camera. I think you'll be frustrated if you try to do wide landscape shots on it.

For that money, I'd probably do something like a Sigma 17-50 combined with the Tamron 70-300 VC. Make sure you get the VC version of the 70-300; there's a non-VC version that's only like $150 and is total crap.

u/Bonezey · 2 pointsr/Nikon

The Sigma is definitely within his budget if you consider Amazon Germany

u/thechauchy · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

The sensor is the same for all of nikons cameras in the D3xxx range, even the d5xxx are the same.

When it comes to the final product your lense is going to be way way way way way more important than the camera body itself.

That being said If I were in your position I would find a used D3300 body or buy it cheap on black Friday. If you can do that, then get yourself a prime lense like the 35mm or 50mm f/1.8. The image quality will be like night and day. I found my 50mm for $100 on Craigslist.

If you really want zoom or primes sound too restrictive then get a Sigma 17-55 f/2.8. It's around $250 new but well worth it.

If you want to spend a little more and get INSANE image quality get a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for around $600. It's like a zooming prime, the only one of its kind and its phenomenal when it works. Chances are you'll have to spend some time calibrating it.

Good luck.

u/nematoadjr · 2 pointsr/Nikon

I think you are pretty good, I would pair down as others said rather then fill up. I would definitely leave the 50mm at home. Then if you think you would use it less the 20% of the time leave the Tokina behind since the coverage/aperture is pretty well covered by your 18-300. I love my Tokina but I really don't use it as much as I think so it's just weight in the bag.

You say you aren't concerned about weight but I always regret a lens by the end of a long day of walking around. I also often bring the lenses with me but then leave it in the hotel room, that way my fear of missing a lens is assuaged.

You didn't list it but I assume a charger in there, I got a small USB based one that is easier to manage then the bulky one you get with the camera for like 10 bucks that does the trick and it plugs into a big 4 port USB AC adapter with a Euro Plug that I got which let's me charge phones and ipads at the same time from one socket.

If $500 is burning a hole in your pocket. The one thing I sometimes carry with me is a a Point and Shoot or a little mirrorless. I have a OM-D EM 10 with a Panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake that fits in my wife's purse for when we go out to dinner. Don't want to show up at a fancy restaurant looking like a tourist. Only to wish you could get a shot of the square outside. In fact one of my favorite shots I took in Croatia was like this and it's hanging on my wall right now. However nowadays I usually even leave that at the hotel because my phone can do almost the same thing.

Also you may want to look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 walk around lens which can be had for 200-300 bucks and that could replace the 1.8's and the Tokina. Sure it's not as good as 1.8 but you get a fair amount of light and shave 3 lenses from your kit.

That $500 is better spent on a few great dinners for you and your wife, or a day trip to a different city IMHO.

Also, my wife and I have a new policy where at least one day of the trip I leave the camera gear in the hotel and just use my phone. It allows me to enjoy the day and spend time with her and my Daughter and not my gear. I really recommend it. The world doesn't NEED your personal take on Vienna : )

u/etayo7 · 2 pointsr/photography

Hey guys, I'm planing to travel to Thailand and I want to buy some new lenses for that trip. At the moment I only have my Nikon D5300 with the kit lens 18-55. The lenses I'm planing to buy are: Tokina 11-16 2.8 // Nikon 50 1.8 G // Nikon 35 1.8 // Sigma 17-50 2.8. I love doing landscape photography, astrophotography and portraits, but I can't afford all these three lenses and I don't want to travel with all that weight on my bag. What would u do in my situation? Thanks for the comments.

u/HungMD · 2 pointsr/Nikon
u/n0gtree · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Your best bet if you want to shoot the night sky at a budget is look for refurbished or used units (on the net - Amazon, Cameta, or your local classifieds.) From a very quick browse, if you want a dedicated night sky shooter, then the Nikon D3300 (refurb $295 from Cameta) and the Rokinon f2.8 14mm = 21mm equivalent ($279 new from Amazon) will let you take amazing night photos. The Nikon D3300 is a great low light shooter - large sensor, paired with a solid image processor. The Rokinon gives a large field of view (equivalent to 80° horizontal) and is fairly fast at f2.8. With this setup, all that's needed is you going to a nice location with little light pollution, snapping away in raw, and then maybe doing some required post-processing.

Also note that I've seen way better deals for the D3300 - seen it at $250 with Kit Lens after discounts and cashback, new, you might be able to find something like that with the Black Friday sales. If you need a more general purpose lens then the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (~300 Amazon) is a great alternative to the Kit Lens - it's faster at f2.8 and slightly wider angle 25mm-75mm in 35mm equivalent. Also, you could look for an equivalent Canon DSLR (1200D from the top of my mind) with a similar lens. Good luck!

Edit: Also note that ultra wide angles <20mm are really expensive new. The 21mm will get you fantastic results, or if you want panoramas, then you might have to stitch pictures together - an entirely different topic!

u/booostedben · 2 pointsr/photography

Oh, yeah I checked and I don't have the room for a 50mm. I'm considering getting this lens now. I'm not sure if a 35mm 1.8 prime would be better though.

u/zyclon7 · 2 pointsr/photography

Thoughts on Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Lens for astro & landscape photography?

I have a Canon t3 with the kit lens and I'm looking at getting another lens that would be better suited for astrophotography and landscape photography when I go camping / hiking. I was searching around for a budget lens and came across this one. Does anyone have it / use it for the intended purposes mentioned above? Is it a good bang for the buck? Other suggestions are welcome.

u/PastramiSwissRye · 2 pointsr/videography

This is the EF-mount one that I recommend for your focal reducer:

u/cryptical · 2 pointsr/astrophotography

If you can swing it, don't overlook the 550d. It does very well as at widefield shots, DSOs, and has the added benefit of Movie Crop Mode which you can use for planetary imaging. The 18-55-IS lens is a nice little lens, and despite being a little slow, it's definitely enough to get you going.

The cool part is, if you end up upgrading your mount and getting a scope, it's versatile enough to where you don't need another camera to learn the basics of a different type of AP.

It also does HD movies and is a nice daytime cam.

There are a lot of lenses worth buying. The 50mm 1.8 is cheap, fast, and tack-sharp. I'd definitely recommend that one. All the other lenses I want are pretty expensive. For widefield/milky way shots, a lot of people seem to be using the Rokinon 14mm which seems like a lot of lens for the money. Haven't tried it out personally, but it gets good reviews.

u/vero358 · 2 pointsr/itookapicture

I can try to tell you off the top of my head. The originals are at home on my laptop. Edited using Adobe Lightroom.

T3i in manual mode
Rokinon 14mm

ISO 100
F5.6, might have even been F8

The sun was behind the trees around 3:30 in the afternoon, so I positioned myself where the top of the main part of the tree was blocking the sun.

u/user10110010 · 2 pointsr/telescopes

There are some ~ $500 options that might be good for a photographer that already has a camera.

You can do /r/landscapeastro with a basic tripod and a wide angle lens. The Rokinon 14mm and the Rokinon 24mm are great lenses for Milky Way (widefield) astrophotography. With the camera locked down on a tripod you can do long exposures up to 30 seconds or so. You can shoot multiple exposures and stack them to reduce noise and bring out details. The lenses I linked to are fast and wide and have aspherical elements that makes them good for astrophotography.

The trick with shooting individual objects with a telephoto lens is that as the stars "move" across the sky during the night that motion is magnified in the viewfinder, so you have to shoot 1 or 2 second exposures so that the motion doesn't cause the stars to trail.

If you want to shoot with a telephoto lens you need a tracking mount. The motorized mount slowly moves the camera at the same rate as the sky, keeping the subject still in the viewfinder. This allows for longer exposures and better results.

There are some interesting low cost tracking mounts for cameras with lenses up to 300mm. I haven't used these (ended up getting a bigger mount) but I've seen some good results posted on the forums.

/r/astrophotography and /r/landscapeastro

SkyWatcher S20510 Star Adventurer Astro Package

Vixen Optics 35505 Polarie Star Tracker

iOptron SkyTracker Pro Camera Mount with Polar Scope, Mount Only

I was looking at this type of light duty tracking mount and what I didn't like is that you can't go "up" size-wise from there.

The next step up is a medium duty tracking mount like the

Celestron Advanced VX Mount

What I like about getting into a mount like this is that it can handle a decent size (and quality) telescope if you want to add that later. It uses the German Equatorial Mount (GEM) design that all top-of-the-line mounts use. So you're getting into a better class of mount that has tighter mechanical tolerances. You can use it with wide or telephoto lenses on your camera for now, and with a nice telescope later.

I recently bought a big ol' Atlas EQ-G tracking mount. It's $1500 new but I found a used one for $700. It didn't come with a tripod so I got a used Meade Field Tripod ($150) and an adapter plate ($120) so it was about $1,000 for that particular mount setup. I plan to use that with my Canon 400mm telephoto lens and expect to get decent pictures of Andromeda galaxy, Orion nebula and other deep sky objects (DSO). I need to tap some threads in the tripod and DIY a spreader and I'll be good to go. I guess my point is I got a heavy duty mount that will work with my existing gear and with a good sized telescope in the future. Worked for me, ymmv.

Check the classifieds at Cloudy Night forums for used equipment.

Good luck!

u/Matingas · 2 pointsr/photography

Wait... what?!



They are the same thing?! The Rokinon is much cheaper...

u/NotDrKevorkian · 2 pointsr/photography

New lens buying advice for Nikon

I'm looking into buying a new lens to move beyond my kit lens from the Nikon D5300, my kit lens is 18-55, 3.6f.

I need advise on what new lens I should get... I do lots of night photography, long exposures and whatnot. I'd love to have something with a wide angle and large aperture size. Preferably keeping the price under $300. I dont mind a cheap feel or manual focus lens as long as the quality and functionality is great.

So far im considering the "Ultra Wide Angle" Rokinon 14mm 2.8f but I'd love something similar with a larger aperature but I havent found anything as of yet, any advise on what other lens I should look at?

Rokinon for those that are interested

u/Wob_Wob · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

What about that? You could snag a 2.8f for that budget easily enough, but another $50-100 more and you could get the lens you want.

u/Pretereo · 2 pointsr/askscience

Umm, I'm sure there are, but I'm not aware of any. I think I just googled some articles on how to do it. I already had the camera with a wide angle lens. I think the main thing you need to consider are:

  1. It should be able to take RAW format pictures so that you can get the most out of your editing.
  2. It should have the feature of either setting up a remote so that you can take the picture without touching the camera, or have a delayed picture setting that will let you take the pictures a couple seconds after pushing the button (this will prevent you from shaking the camera when you go to take the picture).

  • One of the hard lessons I learned early on is that auto focus doesn't really work for these shots because they are at night, so you need to take a photo during the day to figure out where the lens focusing so that you can put it on that same setting at night. I wasted a whole night because I was trying so hard to figure out the focus.

  • Time of the month and location are pretty important. You want to shoot in a place with low light pollution away from the city, and you want to time your shoot based off of the moon cycles. Pick a night with no moon because the light from the moon will ruin your pictures. Here is a chart of this month:
    As you can see, the best time to take a picture this month would have been on the 4th or 5th. 1-2% moon light on both nights.
  • Once you get all that stuff picked out, just start playing around with long exposures from 15-30 seconds. ISO (film speed at 1500-3000).

    There are tons of people that are probably better at it than me out there on the internet, but I thought I'd share my experiences (especially some of my mistakes) to help you out. If you end up getting some good shots, I'd love to see them. Let me know if you have any more questions and I'd be happy to answer them for you.

u/vgm64 · 2 pointsr/photography

Not too long ago I purchased the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro (amazon). I picked it because I wanted something for both macro and a sharp prime lens for portraits. I have been fairly satisfied with it and would recommend it. If you aren't interested in the portrait aspect, then I would probably get something longer than 90mm.

I'd suggest buying some extension tubes which can be found for cheap and would allow you to play with your current lenses at much closer distances to your subjects to help you decide what length macro lens you'd like to get (60mm vs. 90mm vs. 100mm etc.).

u/ReaperOfGrins · 2 pointsr/photocritique

Well I checked again, something was recorded I guess (just the camera info i believe).

The macro tube is a very cheap metal tube which has a male and female EF mount (the receiving end and the actual mount, hopefully that terminology isn't horribly incorrect). All it does is it allows the lens to be held further than usual allowing macro capabilities in lenses that ideally wouldn't. There are no electrical contacts so the aperture etc cannot be changed - i open the aperture at its widest and then mount it on the tube, the display shows the aperture as '00'. Autofocus doesn't work either, so it's all manual focus with really narrow DOF.

It was one of these I believe.

u/JN02882 · 2 pointsr/photography

What are some good cheap attachments I should look at for my Canon Rebel T5 starter kit? I've been looking at extension tubes for budget macro shooting such as this one . Anyone have any other hardware or products I should look into that is also budget?

u/fotolyfe · 2 pointsr/videography

Your 550D has an APS-C sensor, which means it's smaller than a full frame sensor by a factor of 1.5

What that means is whatever focal length of lens you get, you're actually seeing a x1.5 zoom version of it. Example: When you use a 50mm lens, you're getting 75mm out of it.

This kind of set a base for what focal length of lenses you'd want to get. For a full frame camera in general, my go to range consist of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm.

So to get to your question, I'd probably go with a 35mm for you since it's the closest to 50mm for a full frame camera. That's generally a good medium shot, and you can get a fairly good DoF once you play around with it a little. If you do more videos and photos, then this is a good start.

If you are set on getting a 50mm first, I would definitely recommend you to visit your local camera shops, or pawn shops. Try to find a good nikon 50mm lens that's made in the earlier years. 70s, 80s, and get an adapter for it. The reason behind that is because at some point you're going to get a good enough lens that will cover that range, so spending a great deal of money for that range might not be your best option. Obviously, you can get the f1.8 canon, bang the hell out of it for $110 and call it a day and not worry. I'll be the first guy to tell you that's hands down one of the best deal you can get. I own one of those, and one of the nikon 50mm. They're both great in their pricing these days, I bought this almost 3 years ago, and I use it majority of every shoot on my 5Dmkii, all for $130 at the time. I found and bought this at a local camera shop for $150 like a week ago and couldn't be happier. The biggest difference and the reason I don't love the canon 50mm is that it's plastic. Over the years, the focus gear is losing precision and I'm having a tougher time focusing. Also the focus ring prevents you from using a follow focus on it, and on top of that, the glass element on that lens is just not a top quality glass, and so the picture color just doesn't give you that glow even in pre editing phase. Nikon 50mm is still selling this well, even though it's a full manual lens, because their older lenses are all in great quality, durable, and the glass elements are just incredible. Sadly, rokinon doesn't have a 50mm cine lens, their line up goes from 35mm to 85mm, mostly to serve cameras with smaller sensor sizes.

And one more thing, when you get a chance, get your hands on one of these. It takes some learning curve, but if you have a 35mm, 50mm, or an 85mm, this is gonna get you an amazing close up shot with tons of shallow DoF. You're not going to use it a lot, but damn if you don't have it when you need it! Word of advise on it though: Throw a shit ton of lights and close your iris, cause when I said a shit ton of shallow DoF, I mean your focal distance could easily be a nose length!

Hope this helps!

Edit: Typo

u/Ruanon · 2 pointsr/photography

These are the exact tubes I purchased...I have to say it's the best $15 I've spent on my kit :D

u/orangesolo · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

This is what I use

It's awesome. Definitely worth the 11 bucks.

u/SamWilber · 2 pointsr/itookapicture

Canon T2i. I used one of these on my Canon 55-255.

bonus bts pic!

u/cougar572 · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know where you get your prices from but the 50mm 1.8g is $216 and the 1.4g is $424 on US amazon so about a $200 difference. I think you are talking about the 85mm in which case you are correct.

u/ypod · 2 pointsr/photography

Nikon makes a couple affordable 50mm 1.8 lenses - they're a great deal for the image quality you get out of them. The focal length is perfect for portraits on DX format cameras, and the wide aperture makes it usable in lower light conditions. eg

u/rogue · 2 pointsr/photography

The Nikon D5000 doesn't have a built in autofocus drive so you'll want to shop for a lens that has AF-S. The 85mm f/1.8G comes to mind as a good portrait lens, due to its focal length. There's also the 50mm f/1.8G and 50mm f/1.4G which is within the focal length she's familiar with when using the kit lens.

u/pestilence4hr · 2 pointsr/photography

I also just noticed that they released a 50mm f/1.8g AF-S lens this spring. I may just have to get that one and sell the f/1.8d AF. Seems to get decent reviews.

u/jasonxwoods · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

I cannot speak for the GH1 or 2, however I love my 600D/t3i I have got great results from it and have used it on numerous occasions.

It is the only camera I used for this project

And it will be the only camera I shall be using for my projects I have coming up.

With the addition of the Nifty Fifty you can get some great stuff with it.

And of course Magic Lantern

u/dexcel · 2 pointsr/photography

I got the 500D last year, Have been happy with it ever since. Have got better as i have learnt the functions and know what to do with them. There is still tons of stuff to learn but i think i have the basics for sure. I jsut look on flickr and sort by camera and i am constantly blown away by what people can do with it.

To be honest 18-55m is okay but i went for this lens first. Nice all rounder, got a bit of a zoom on it for those travel photos, the lens is nice and wide so takes in plenty of light, zooms far enough out so you can get some wider shots. pretty happy with it. get a filter for it though as you will hate to scratch the lens.

but yeah go for it, but save some money for the lens as well. I know a lot of people have liked this lens as well. Fixed but really low f function allowing for great low light shots if need be.

u/jbkrauss · 2 pointsr/france

Le 80D a quelques petits trucs de plus, il est aussi tropicalisé (tu peux prendre des photos sous la pluie et en environnements humides tranquille). T'as plus de réglages de balance des blancs aussi il me semble.

En tout cas, si tu veux lui offrir un petit truc bonus en plus de son nouvel appareil photo, prends un 50mm 1.8 "nifty fifty". Ouvert à fond, il fait des très beaux portraits.

u/bejean · 2 pointsr/photography

Honestly, neither lens is awesome, but you'll want one of them while you figure out the camera/photography. As a T2i owner, I would say get the cheaper package and a 50mm f/1.8 II.

u/Switchbak · 2 pointsr/photography
u/PFUnRuw8Ar46 · 2 pointsr/Nikon
  1. Get the Nikon 50mm 1.8 for $100 or so.

  2. Then, get one of these things for $7 shipped.
    A 52mm reversing ring

    If you'd prefer extension tubes, here's some for $10.

    Now you can take great pics with that 50 mounted normally or macro photos with it flipped around. Here's one of many tutorials on this.

    Now you've got a standard lens and macro covered, decide what else you're going to shoot and buy accordingly.
u/AizuchiKinoko · 2 pointsr/photography

Mine was a Canon 50mm 1.8 II. This looks like the Nikon equivalent. It's great for low depth of field shots. Sharper too.

u/jasonbarnette · 2 pointsr/photography

As soon as I upgraded from my very first kit lens, there were two lenses I bought simultaneously.

The first was the 50mm f/1.8. That lens is just ridiculously sharp, and six years later I still use it. I still prefer the older D lens over the newer G lens because the older model has the old-fashioned focus ring with dialed-in infinity position that is really helpful when setting the focus for night shots. $135

The second was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This is probably my most-used lens in my bag of eleven lenses. It is sharp, has a great zoom range, and the maximum constant f/2.8 aperture is really helpful in low light. Now this one is gonna cost you. Currently the new value is listed at $600, but they have used ones for as little as $240.

u/shamarctic · 2 pointsr/photography

Absolutely you should shoot in RAW. I'd suggest Adobe Lightroom to process your shots. In terms of lenses, you may want to give a "nifty fifty" a shot. Here is a 1.8 for $99, and a 1.4 for $429. If you can afford it, go for the 1.4, but either way you will not be disappointed. The wide aperture gives you a nice bokeh effect, and the fixed length will help you work on your composition.

u/YourLatinLover · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

Thanks for the reply! I've found several 50mm 1.8 lenses on Amazon that are significantly cheaper. Like this one:

And this one is even more inexpensive:

Is the quality of the image significantly better with the one you recommended? Can I take pictures like the ones I posted above with one of the less expensive lenses, or do you really recommended the one you linked on BestBuy?

Thanks so much for the help!

u/Garak · 2 pointsr/photography

I do! That's what I wound up getting. I'm having a blast with mine--this is my favorite picture so far. It's a great camera. It's not the most sophisticated camera Nikon offers, but it's got everything you'll need for quite a while. It's also nice and light, so you can ease into lugging around SLR-sized cameras.

I started out with a D40 because Rockwell made such a stink about it, but I exchanged it for the D60. The D60 is a nice upgrade in a few ways. First off, the kit lens has image stabilization, which comes in pretty handy in low light. Second, the extra megapixels, despite what Rockwell says, do come in handy. It's nice to have room to crop. There are a few other little extras, too, like a sensor cleaner and a few interface improvements.

The only caveat has to do with lenses. Nikon is in the middle of transitioning from putting the autofocus motor in the body to putting it in the lens. The D40 and D60 don't have an in-body motor, so you lose autofocus on some older lenses. This is mostly a non-issue for newbies like us who don't have lens collections, except when it comes to the legendary 50mm 1.8. It's one of the few "fast" cheap lenses, meaning that you can open the aperture to blur backgrounds and shoot in low light. You can still use the lens, but you'll have to focus manually.

Good luck!

u/Capitol62 · 2 pointsr/photography

Also, if you don't want the kit lens and only want to get the 55-200 you should give them a call. They might knock off an extra $75 or so.

To be honest though, if I were buying new again, (I own a d40x and am in the process of getting a d300) I would start with a D80 and here's why. The d40/d40x/d60 is a great camera, really, it's awesome for an entry level rig. It does have one major drawback, which is also why they are so cheap in price not quality. They don't have an internal lens motor. Not having a lens motor limits the lenses you can put on the camera. You pretty much need to get lenses with motors in them if you want to auto focus.

Why this is a problem. I was recently looking to buy a 50mm f1.4. There are several Nikon options. The older 50mm lenses cost between $100-200 used and have great image quality but I couldn't use them on my camera unless I gave up auto focus. The only lenses that would work are the sigma and the new Nikon that was literally just released. They cost $450, clearly much more expensive.

So, the d40 line are cheaper now and if you just want to take nicer vacation pictures will work absolutely great but if you want to move into any other sort of photography they'll quickly become more expensive because you'll be forced to buy more expensive lenses. Something like this might work. It's a little more than what you want to spend but it's a great camera and the 18-135 lens will give you much greater flexibility than the standard 18-55 kit lens.

Or this and this

u/IamTCM · 2 pointsr/photography

I've got this coming in the mail

u/urikdaffy · 2 pointsr/photography

So about a year ago I got my first Nikon DSLR (D3300) and have been playing around with styles, and I definitely believe that portraits is the way I want to go. I've been using the 18-55mm kit lens so far and have looked into what lenses a portrait photographer should use and I think a 50mm would fit me. Somebody near me is selling a nikon 50mm and a sigma 50mm
they have the same maximum aperture so I'm trying to figure out what the differences are and what I should choose for my final decision. Also why should I buy these and not one of the $100 50mm lenses like this one? I would really appreciate an explanation on the differences. Thank you!

u/Quepenabeach · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm looking to get a new lens, I was thinking either 35mm or 50mm, I feel I shoot more in 50mm but had a question about autofocus. I have a Nikon D3400, would this lens have autofocus capabilities with it?

Also, how can I find examples of photos shot in 50mm or 35mm?

u/robogranny42 · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers
u/virtualkuz · 2 pointsr/photography

Granted you need a D70/80/90 or higher to use AF on it. Nikon most certainly has a nifty fifty equivalent.

It is $125 though, and assuming you are going to do a bare bones cost analysis, the Canon EOS 50mm has to have an electronic aperture and AF motor in it for $100. The Nikon has a mechanical aperture as all Nikon lenses do and has no motor for $125. Theoretically you are getting higher quality components in the Nikkor taking the $25 price increase and removal of 2 electronic costs compared to the EOS.

u/hhhhhhhha · 2 pointsr/photocritique

Find photos that you like, and copy them as close as you can.

Notice the lighting, posing, composition, shutter speed, depth of field, and editing.

After perfecting each shot, you can then use the techniques you learn to explore different variations, eventually creating your own vision and style.

edit: I also recommend getting this lens (nikon 50mm, 1.8), it's cheap, will give you very shallow depth of field when you need it, nice bokeh, and will help with low light since the d70 gets pretty noisy when you bump the iso up.

u/dazmond · 2 pointsr/Nikon

I'm sure you have your reasons for not looking at a 50mm prime, but for the record I have this 50mm f/1.8 on my D600 and it's just amazing - superb sharpness and the perfect length for a full-frame camera. No VR though, so those wide apertures can be useful.

I also have the 28-300mm ED VR lens; obviously this is a slower and slightly softer lens, and you need to be prepared to Lightroom away a bit of chromatic aberration. But it's easy to get these things out of proportion; honestly, if you're shooting primarily for the web, or for prints at A3 or smaller sizes, I think you'd struggle to detect a difference between a shot taken with this and one from a prime.

u/Thatguyyolo · 2 pointsr/photography

I think i will go with this

D90 body only for $300

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D $105

and get her another lens for her birthday or something. Will that Lens take good pictures or is the stock lens better?

u/sqirl · 2 pointsr/photography

I generally carry these 2 around when i bring my camera.

Tamron 18-270mm

Nikon 50mm

u/sweatypeanuts · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

The Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is a nice choice, and lots of people like the nifty 50. The kit lens (18-55) isn't terrible, but it definitely is not ideal. Always invest in nice glass, because you can use it forever.

u/lagasan · 2 pointsr/PictureChallenge

Couple thoughts for you. Firstly, looking through your other shots, I think this one fits the bill here a lot better. I'll give you credit for trying to go your own way with choice in focus, and it could be an interesting idea, but the shot you selected seems to fall somewhere in the middle. I think to accomplish what you're hinting at would require a closer focal point, which is limited by your gear in this case.

If you want to try taking some macro shots, there are some cheap ways to get your foot in the door. Mind you, cheap is cheap, so don't expect the world from something like this, but at the same time, it can get you playing with the compositions you want relatively painlessly. I got one of this exact set when I got my first camera, and still use them on my 600D from time to time. I'm assuming yours came with the EF-s 18-55mm kit, like mine did, for which this should work:

They'll bring your focal point from around a foot to a matter of centimeters, depending on which you use.

Here are some examples that I've taken, using those exact attachments with the same lens.


and here,

and here.

You can see the optics aren't fantastic, but you can't expect them to be for such cheap accessories. Also, here are a couple examples using the same attachments on a bit nicer EF 28mm 1.8 USM, same camera (1),(2).

Mind you, I'm far from a professional, so take this as you will. Just trying to give you something helpful based on my own experience.

One final thing, completely unrelated to any of the previous discussion, but the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 lens is a crazy good lens for what it costs. I mean, it's loud, and it has no image stabilization, but the difference between it and the kit at the same focal length is worth mentioning, and being able to crank it wide open at times will let you shoot faster at lower ISO (which is nice, because fighting noise is a constant battle with that camera). Also, opening all the way to 1.8, that lens will let you absolutely soak a shot in bokeh should you decide to (eg).

u/jdsfighter · 2 pointsr/canon

I like the T3i and for the price I find it pretty awesome. The T4i's higher FPS is nice though, but the touch screen to me is more of a gimmick. I like the idea of the SL1, but if you start getting some larger lenses you'll find the weight a bit unbalanced.

If those are your choices, I'd go with a T4i. Now for some options. If you opt for the 18-55, you'll find your zoom somewhat limited, but you'll be under your budget of $800, and you can easily grab the 55-250mm for ~$300 later. However, if you spend a bit extra and get the T4i with the 18-135mm for ~$1,100, I think you'll be much happier.

Now for a few tips:

  • Grab some extra batteries - Link

  • A battery grip - Link

  • A 50mm f/1.8 lens - Link
u/traal · 2 pointsr/pics

> Only thing you lacked was a $50,000 camera and lighting kit.

Or a $500 camera, $106 lens, and $516 worth of lighting equipment.

u/cheezerman · 2 pointsr/photography

Your lenses are slow, but I wouldn't bother buying new lenses. Buy the 430EX, and learn how to bounce it, sync it, adjust it, etc. You're going to need an off camera flash eventually.

Don't bother with that package, just buy the straight flash from Amazon for cheaper and pick up batteries locally.

Eventually, I'd pick up the 50 1.8 lens. It's a very sharp, decently fast lens for $100. I have $1400 lenses and I still love this lens.

Please don't go buy $300 lenses right now. Your situation will be best served by getting a flash and learning to use it.

u/noisymime · 2 pointsr/pics

The very first thing you should do is go and get one of these:

Out of the box it will take better pictures than your kit lens and once you learn to use it properly, your pics will be even better :)

u/Lambo_ · 2 pointsr/Denver

You DEFINITELY need to get a new lens.

The first lens you should get is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which sells for about $100 at Best Buy or Mike's Camera. It is a prime lens, meaning there is no zoom function. But it is much simpler than a telephoto lens with fewer moving parts, but you can get higher quality optics relatively inexpensively. This will allow you to play around with aperture & depth of field.

If you don't mind buying used, the photo/video section of the Denver Craigslist is pretty robust. you can find all sorts of used gear for great prices!

u/AbunaiXD · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

As many others stated its more about the lens than the camera. I personally use Canon with the nifty 50 to achieve similar results.

Pro tip to achieve that effect, there must be distance between the subject (girl) and the background (tree). The more distance, the more the background is out of focus. Lower F-stop helps but you can achieve similar results at F4 if your close enough to the subject.

Also if you have an IPhone 6(idk if others do it) you can achieve similar photos with the blurred backgrounds.

u/careynotcarrie · 2 pointsr/AskCulinary

What's your budget? If it's at all possible, spending the extra cash on an entry-level dslr body will be worth it. The sensors in point-and-shoot cameras are generally much smaller than those in dslrs, which means that a p&s sensor can't gather as much data, and this yields poorer-quality images by comparison. And dslrs afford the user a lot more control (in terms of settings) and versatility (using different lenses)—both of which will be very important down the road as your photography skills improve. I'd suggest looking on eBay for a used Canon T1i or T2i (body only); you should be able to find a decent one somewhere in the range of $200–300. And then get the Canon 50mm f/1.8. This is one of the best bang-for-your-buck lenses, and it will serve you far better for food/macro photography than the standard 18–55mm kit lens. So if you can swing it, $400–500 will get you a perfectly good beginner dslr set-up. Not that much more than a decent point and shoot, for something waay better.

Additionally, look into purchasing/obtaining a post-processing program like Adobe Lightroom for color correction and other image editing. If you'd like to avoid spending money on software, there's an open-source image editor called GIMP. I haven't used it myself, but I've heard some fellow food bloggers say that it works relatively fine-ish (especially for being free).

u/I_AM_STILL_A_IDIOT · 2 pointsr/CityPorn

>Googled it and it looks like a pretty great camera, I've got a Canon 650D but I've yet to take many photos around that part of London with it.

Yes, I love it, recently upgraded from a Pentax K-x starter model and it's been a blast taking pics with the K-5 IIs. I recommend you head on out to downtown and take some pics!

>Just noticed your lens is also pretty fancy, do you think it's worth investing in lenses like these? Still somewhat new to photography so just curious as you seem advanced

Absolutely. I had this lens before I had the K-5 IIs and truly the lens matters much more than the actual camera.

You can take a top line camera and slap on a starter lens, and you will take pictures that are barely better than the starter camera would with the same lens. If you take a starter camera and compare a top quality lens to a start lens, you'll notice a big difference is easy to achieve.

It's definitely $300 well spent for this lens. Its main advantage over the starter lens is its wide f/1.8 aperture which allows you to take much better night shots without being forced to prolong your exposure (shutter speed), because it lets in much more light in a short time. It's also lovely for depth of field.

If I can recommend a lens for you, I would say get a 50mm f/1.8 first of all. They're cheap and very useful for portraits and street photos, and there's a reason they're nicknamed 'nifty fifty'. On a cropped sensor like your 650D's, you might prefer a wider angle lens if you want to do landscape photos or city skyline shots like mine. In that case, look at lenses with focal length of 30mm and less. Conversely, if you're interested in doing sports photos, wild animal photos and bird spotting, or airshows and the like, look at lenses of 200mm and more, since those will let you zoom in real close.

u/pyxis · 2 pointsr/gadgets

I was given a Canon Rebel XSI for my birthday and would like to maximize the camera with accessories. I already have this lens on my list of things to get:

u/Sandtalon · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

I don't think that lens is compatible with Canon cameras (no mention of an EF mount). You might be able to use an adaptor, but that could get pricey.

If you're looking for a 50mm prime, get the Canon one:

(Also, it's spelled lens.)

u/STNW · 2 pointsr/TeenMFA
This lens and a litany of filters, I'm really excited.
The texture on these should be awesome in person

u/georgeavazzy · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

I highly recommend this $100 50mm lens:

It's probably the best $100 lens you can get.

u/schnozzy · 2 pointsr/battlestations

Oh very nice. I just got the [Canon EF 50mm f1.8] ( for my Canon T5i. Thing takes some awesome photo/videos, really liking it so far.

u/thegreattrun · 2 pointsr/itookapicture

I own this lens and am thinking about getting a portrait lens to photograph my brother's wedding (I'm just taking pictures for fun).

Would you recommend not getting this lens here and just sticking to the macro for portraits? If so, why?

u/mrg0ne · 2 pointsr/itookapicture

The "plastic fantastic" actually refers to this lens:

The casing is literally plastic. But at about 100 bucks, it is an amazing value.

On a crop sensor like the T3i 50mm. a 50mm f/2 is more like a 80mm f/2 on a full frame sensor. The quick and dirty way of calculating this would be to take the focal length and multiply it by 1.6. In practice all it really means if you have to stand a little further back than if you had a pricey full frame camera. 1.6 meters, instead of 1 meter, for a similar effect.

Overall not a big deal.

As for the grain deal, that was just my person opinion. It is a striking image as it is.

u/MtCleverest · 2 pointsr/audiophile

my moneys on the canon thrifty 50 Laser sharp, great depth of field.

u/ADHD-PI · 2 pointsr/photography

Oh, actually, since you're spending company money (and so have no reason to try to save money) I'd suggest upgrading to a refurbished T2i (as /u/de1irium suggested) and spending the leftover $120 on a 50mm f/1.8.

u/the_individualist · 2 pointsr/photography

Is this the guy?

For that price, the lens is probably worth adding to my bag even if I eventually end up upgrading my kit lens anyway.

u/j_deadfox · 2 pointsr/Filmmakers

Not sure if you're gonna find any glass worth using that gives a cinematic feel under $75, unless its heavily used or you get lucky.

Since you're trying to keep it cheap, are you just looking to get a zoom lens? Or do you want to go with primes? Cheap primes will give you a better ability to create a "cinematic" look, rather than a cheap zoom.

I had some good results shooting on the GH2 with t/1.5 Rokinon Cine Prime Lenses. They run around $300 - $500 i believe, and you gotta buy a mount adapter for the GH2's C-Mount. The build of the lenses feel really fragile and easy to damage, but you'll get a solid look for the price. However, for the t/1.5's, they were going soft at around a 1.8, so take that "t/1.5" label with a grain of salt.

Other than those lenses, I'd try this canon 50mm f/1.8 for $125, and also grab an EF to C-Mount adapter.

u/whoneeds_sleep · 2 pointsr/photography

T5i body, 18-55 IS STM, Amazonbasics bag, Sandisk 32GB Class 10 - $749

EF 50mm f/1.8 - $125

Can get other lenses as she starts to get limited by the current ones.

Disclaimer: I might be slightly biased because I shoot with Canon :P

u/horse_meat_treasure · 2 pointsr/astrophotography

A great starter lens for astrophotography with Canon DSLRs is the 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty." Amazon link. Its short focal length is quite forgiving for iffy or no tracking, so if you're only working with a tripod, it'll do you well.

u/EpicNarwhals · 2 pointsr/photography

get yourself one of these. it works wonders

u/zedfucon · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm looking into getting a new lens for my Canon Rebel Xti. Mostly, I want it for portraits and to get the shallow DOF. I Found two choices on Amazon that I can't seem to decide on. The first one is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 50mm link for around $100. The second is the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens 85mm link for $369. I know that the 85mm would be ideal for portrait photography because of the flattening but would there really be that big of a difference between 50mm and 85mm? And does anyone have any opinions on these lenses? TIA!

u/Fat_Ass_Reddit · 2 pointsr/xbox360

I used a Canon 50mm prime lens and a macro lens adapter that came with a wide angle lens, like this one.

u/InvisibleJiuJitsu · 2 pointsr/videography

i personally have the panasonic leica summilux 25mm f1.4 which is a beautiful lens! but the panasonic f1.7 is also awesome and a hell of a lot cheaper!! (amazon referral links)

u/gw2fu · 2 pointsr/M43

The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 lens is an absolute steal at $150 or so, I had a lot of fun with it this weekend after getting it on Thursday. There are some documented issues on this lens with a thing called focus shift but (check my comment history) I ran some tests and wasn't able to reproduce any of the problems other people seem to have had. For a relatively small (on my GX85 the whole kit fits in my jacket pocket) and lightweight lens with good bokeh and sharpness with a wide aperture for low-light situations, fast autofocus, and the versatile 25mm (nifty fifty) focal length, I can't think of a better bang for your buck. You might get marginally better results with the Oly equivalent but not worth more than twice as much money.

As far as downsides to this lens, its focal length is a little tight for landscape shots (I'll still be using my 12-32mm pancake kit lens for those), and it's not as compact as the 20mm f1.7 Panasonic. But with the 20mm pancake being over $100 more, I couldn't justify it, especially with the problems the 20mm apparently has with slow autofocus (no bueno for street photography and shots of fast moving pets). I wanted this lens to take pictures of the puppy I'm getting in a month, and because I needed to add a solid fast prime to my collection (I'm a noob just like you).

Given all the research I did last week leading up to purchasing the lens, I would wager that the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is as good a beginner prime as you can get on an m43 system and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have or take some test shots if you wanna see what the lens looks like :)

EDIT: Appears the lens has gone up to $250 on Amazon since I bought it last week, but looks like it tends to be go back to around $150 often based on recent price history:

u/mgrosvenor · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

The nifty fifty is a $100 50mm prime. It probably the best bag for buck lens you can buy and an absolute must have.

If I were you, I'd put the 50mm on one camera and a zoom on the other and never change that setup.

u/Aperson3334 · 2 pointsr/photography

Besides the closer minimum focal distance, is there any reason to buy this lens over this one?

u/Griffith · 2 pointsr/Cameras

First of all I'm going to start by saying that these cameras have different sensor sizes, namely APS-C, Micro Four Thirds and 1inch sizes. There are advantages and disadvantages to either ones but In general these are the main characteristics:

APS-C sensors - medium to large-sized lenses, slightly long minimal focusing distance (around 0.5m with a normal focal range lens), shallower depth-of-field (more blurred backgrounds in pictures)

Micro Four Thirds sensors - small sized lenses, very short minimal focusing distances (20/30cm with normal focal range lenses), more depth-of-field than ASP-C (less blurred backgrounds in pictures)

(I'll talk about the 1inch sensor further below)

There are other differences that vary on a camera by camera basis but those are the most important things for you to keep in mind. I will mention for each of the examples you gave the sensor size and some of the characteristics of each camera system as briefly as I can.

> Canon 750DKIS 24MP Digital SLR Camera (with 18-55mm IS STM Lens $764


> Canon EOS 700D 18MP Digital SLR Camera (Twin IS Lens Kit) 18-55mm STM & 55-250mm STM Twin Lens K $849

APS-C sensor cameras - both of them will offer relatively similar performance. The 700D deal with two lenses is a nice one, but it's only useful if you like to shoot telephoto pictures (pictures of things that are very far away from you). I would prefer to get the 750 because the sensor is slightly better and it has wireless, so it is a bit more future-proof and better performing. For the price difference between the 750D and the 700D you could buy one of the many budget lenses for the system that offer surprisingly good results. I recommend the Canon 50mm f1.8 which will give you very beautiful results with shallow depth of field:

Olympus OM-D E-M10 MKII Compact System Camera with 14-42mm EZ Lens 764

Micro Four Thirds - a very small but well-performing camera that is just an all-round good package. It has better image stabilization than the Canon built into the body. What that means is that for most situations you practically don't need a tripod. If you want a camera that is capable of giving you very good image quality but still be small and compact enough to carry around without much hassle, this is a good option. Most of the lens options aren't as cheap as the ones for the Canon systems, however Sigma makes a few lenses that are very affordable and high quality so I recommend checking those out if you are on a tight budget.

> CameraPro FUJIFILM X-T10 Mirrorless Compact System Camera Silver Body Only $597 ($797, Cashback $200) - Do I need to buy a lens still?

APS-C sensor camera - Yes you will need to buy a lens for it. Fuji cameras tend to be slightly more expensive than other cameras that compete with theirs but in terms of "raw" specifications they fall behind in some aspects. Video recording on most Fuji cameras is very poor. Even so, people that shoot phtoos with Fuji cameras love it because they usually have great ways to operate the camera that make them very enjoyable to use and most importantly, I'd argue that they offer the best images out of all APS-C cameras without tweaking them. In the long-run I think Fuji would be the most expensive choice but it would also deliver the most pleasant results. If you want a lens recommendation to start off with I suggest the Fuji 35mm f2.0 . Although Fuji is expensive, it is the camera system I mostly appreciate at the moment, and the one I'd like to own in the future due to its lens selection which offers a lot of very high quality glass and the absolutely gorgeous image quality. Another note is that Fuji's lenses tend to be some of the smallest ones in APS-C lens systems.

Sony Cybershop RX100 or RX100 II? (599 vs 795) -

1inch sensor (the smallest, meaning more depth of field) - these cameras are very compact and actually small enough to be pocketable but they are also the most limited in terms of performance, particularly low light. When I compared an RX100 to my Olympus which has the same sensor as the E-M10 camera you linked, it didn't perform as well in low light both in terms of focusing speed and image quality but in outdoors with decent lighting you can get really excellent results. In my opinion the RX100 is the perfect "secondary camera" if you own an APS-C camera but don't always want to carry around with you, but if you end up going with a Micro Four Thirds camera you don't have as big of a need for a secondary smaller camera.

I hope this is helpful to you, I know it's a long post but I tried to make it as short as I could without entering into small minutia. Let me know if you have any further questions.

u/avlarios · 2 pointsr/Photography_Gear

This 50mm is always a good buy

It's one of the first lenses I bought when I first started. And its cheap.

A wide angle prime lens would be a good choice too, if you're looking to get more landscape in your photos while out on your hikes!

u/notsamharper · 2 pointsr/BurningMan
  • Find a used Canon T3i, T5i or something similar
  • Get a canon 50mm f/1.8 lens (doesn't zoom, so it won't suck dust into the lens). Solid quality, cheap, can take great portrait style photos if you want to get artsier.
  • Take 10 minutes to google "aperture" before you with the camera a bit.
  • Leave it in AV mode (aperture priority). Then you don't have to play with the settings but can get some killer photos.
u/OPisTheBoss · 2 pointsr/photomarket

The 50mm f1.8 is great for this. They're $125 on Amazon, but you can find the older version (still good, what I have) for less than $100.

u/apileofhobbies · 2 pointsr/boudoir

Let me know if this doesn't belong here

So I get asked what camera or gear people should get to start out.

My usual answer is this: anything. The camera itself won't help you with your rules or techniques. You have to develope your eye for that.

The main difference between an expensive camera and a cheap one is image quality and flexibility with your settings

I have a lot more on this but I'll leave it with that for now. I'm sure people will chime in below

This photo was taken with a 5ish year old crop sensor camera. And a $140 lens

Canon EOS Rebel T3i Digital SLR Camera Body Only (discontinued by manufacturer)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

u/Dotjiff · 2 pointsr/photography

First budget lens anyone should buy is the "nifty fifty" (Canon 50mm 1.8) as most people find the 50mm focal length to be the most versatile prime. It's also less than half the price of the lenses you are referring to and a great performer. I own the Canon L series 85mm and 24-70mm, which are top of the line, and the 50mm still holds its own among those in terms of performance. It is very lightweight and portable as well.

People who use multiple DSLRS love the 50mm as well as a video lens because of its price, focal length, and performance. Highly suggest you check it out.

u/perpterds · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

So, I didn't see the post I originally found, so you might need to do some google research. I can't speak to the quality of anything honestly, as I've no experience with them, myself.

Anyhow, I did also find the Amazon listings:

Body only, no lens, $999.00 US

Body + Kit lens 18mm-135mm (it's a pretty solid zoom), $1399.00 US

Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM lens
This is possibly *the* best lens you can get below $400-$500, especially in terms of sharpness. It's what I used for that photo linked above, and it's nearly the only lens I use (despite having about 4 other lenses). And it's only $125. I recommend this even higher than the 80D itself, if you get *any* Canon.

u/TheRealMattyPanda · 2 pointsr/gadgets

Using DSLRs as a example.

A Canon 6D is 20.2 megapixels.

To that you can use a Canon 50mm lens for $125 or you could use a Zeiss 50mm lens for $615, both are still going into 20.2MP sensor.

Or, that Canon 6D is $999 before you get a lens, or you could get this Canon Powershot point and shoot for $209. Both are 20.2MP, but one's definitely takes a hell of a lot better pictures than the other.

u/HollieBB · 2 pointsr/battlestations

Yup I'm using it as a webcam for streaming. I currently have this lens but I want to upgrade to one a bit better eventually. Just haven't bit the bullet yet.

My cam runs on an adapter so it's not reliant on battery life. I've done 24 hour marathon streams without issue.

u/alexanderreel · 2 pointsr/videography

Check this up my wish list amazon link canon lens

u/trolllante · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

O wouldn’t sell your lens kit, instead I would buy a 50mm 1.8f . Not only they are great for portrait but they work good during night.

u/kirinlemons · 2 pointsr/CameraLenses

??? I have these lens and it widens my face:

u/jbeer · 2 pointsr/flying

Just buy the Nifty Fifty - You can't afford not to own it! 1.8mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

u/n1ywb · 2 pointsr/PlantedTank

that's awesome, DSLR has really come a long way. I'm impressed that the stock lens performs so well such low light but I suppose that's also saying something about the sensor. I stopped using my DSLR after the lens AF died, but now I kind of want to get a really fast lens specifically for tank shots

what would be uber cool for a small tank would be to shoot it with a light-field camera so you can refocus the image :)

u/unrealkoala · 2 pointsr/photography

Canon 77D is $750 refurbished. 50 mm f/1.8 STM is $125 brand new and you can grab that dreamy bokeh that every new photographer wants. A Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (version 1 is fine) is probably $300, no more than $350 and that should be great for your landscapes.

u/Syfilms64 · 2 pointsr/GH5

Thanks for the advice. I currently shoot with my G7 and have the kit lens that comes with it, the 25mm F1.7, and the 45-150mm F4.0. I think it's a nice combo that covers all my bases. Upgrading to a GH5 or 5s would financially make the most sense for me. But if I make shit tons of YouTube money and upgrade to Full Frame, I'll let you know :)

u/Steev182 · 2 pointsr/M43

This is great because it's so cheap. Basically gives a "normal" field of view, but the wider aperture can give you both a shallow depth of field and it'll let you shoot faster shutter speeds/lower ISOs in lower light.


The 42.5 is a bit smaller physically, but is more a portrait lens, allowing you to have your model a bit further away for head shots at similar apertures to the 25mm, but with more in focus of the model compared to the background. It is more than double the price of the 25mm.


I rented the 42.5 at the same time as the 14-140, and while I loved it, the 14-140 seemed more useful to me at the time because I already had the 25mm, but I will probably get the 42.5 at some point.

u/ByyChase · 2 pointsr/PanasonicG7

So with a $250 budget that gives us 2 or 3 options for lenses. As I mentioned before, I think the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is your best bet. It's a good focal length (It shoots like a 50mm on a full frame camera) and is a really good price for what you get. As someone said else where in this thread, framing is what really matters in these scenarios, so any lens really will do the job for these scenarios. If you want a zoom lens though the two options that sit inside of your price range are Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 which is a pancake version of the kit lens that comes with the camera usually. This will keep your rig super small yet super versatile as well. Finally, if you have it, I would just use the kit lens. If you don't have it here is a link for it. It should do everything you need and is sharp enough for most people who would be using a G7. If you have any questions feel free to ask!

u/Jisifus · 2 pointsr/photography

I've been shooting with a Panasonic Lumix G3 for the last few years and recently got myself the 25mm f1.7 lense because I love street photography. The pictures are turning out nicely but I really feel like getting a new camera around christmas. Does getting the GH5 make much sense? What recommendations do you have?

While I really love Canon (I borrow a 650D and the 50mm 1.8 from school all the time) and would love to change to DSLRs, I feel kinda bad "abandoning" a 250$ lense like that.

u/Timmyc62 · 2 pointsr/M43
u/generic_white_male_2 · 2 pointsr/M43

Below are some affordable lenses that will make a world of difference for portrait photography

The following lens almost never leaves my camera.

Below is a very cheap lens that will give you so much blur it will be hard to manually focus.

Older version:

You should check out the example pics for each lens in the review section. The lower the f stop and the higher the focal distance the more background blur.

u/L00nyT00ny · 2 pointsr/Cameras

As a M43 user I have to jump in and recommend the Olympus EPL7. It has 3 axis IBIS so taking pictures sub 100 shutter without a tripod is very doable. Its touchscreen enables you to change focus points as well as take a picture with a touch of a finger. Both those things just make usability so much easier.

You also said that portability is important. With a M43 kit, you will have a kit that is 40%-50% smaller than an APSC kit (even vs a Sony mirrorless). The thing with APSC mirrorless is that cameras are smaller, but lenses still have to be near the same size as your standard Canon or Nikon lenses. A m43 kit being so small, also means that there is no excuse not to bring the camera everywhere you go. For most people, they only bring their camera when they plan to shoot since the bulk makes it inconvenient.

The M43 system has one of the widest variety and fleshed out lens ecosystem out there. With 2 main companies invested, and many third parties also joining in, there are just so many lens options. I would pair this camera with a Panny 25mm that is on a nasty price drop at the moment. Cool thing with M43 is that you don't have to worry about shooting wide open, since the sensor is small enough to make most lenses sharp, even when open all the way. For ultimate portability you could go the Panny 20mm. This would make the EPL7 practically a pocket camera with super sharp images. I wouldn't recommend getting the 20mm new though as it is usually widely available on the used market at a lower price.

There is also /r/M43 if you want to check out more.

u/aleagori · 2 pointsr/videography

Get a nifty fifty in mirrorless style aka 25mm f/1.7 ( But you don't need to get it immediately. Kit lens is enough for the beginning. Yes, you can your canon lens with adapter but no auto focus and aperture control.

u/SmallYTChannelBot · 1 pointr/SmallYTChannel

Thank you for submitting to /r/SmallYTChannel. You have spent 3λ to submit here, making your current balance 11λ.
/u/ajt208, please comment !givelambda to the most helpful advice you are given. You
will be rewarded 1λ if you do so. For more information, read the FAQ.

Video data:

Title|GIGAMAX YAKISOBA | We eat 2136 CALORIES of SPICY goodness
Description|Yuki and I eat an entire 2136 calorie box of the new and spicy GIGAMAX Japanese Yakisoba. I usually don't eat instant yakisoba anymore, but this new giant spicy box was calling out to me, so I went for it. ⤶We also discuss the difference between Japanese noodles in America and Japan, and give a couple tips for making these noodles, and any other instant noodles really, some more flavor. ⤶Making the cooking scene was a blast in this one. ⤶Oh, and this one is in English... ごめんね!⤶⤶My Camera: ⤶Closeup lens: ⤶Wide Angle lens: ⤶Closeup, wider angle lens: ⤶Joby GorillaPod: ⤶Deity Mic:⤶⤶カメラ: ⤶50mm: ⤶10-18mm: ⤶24mm: ⤶Joby三脚: ⤶Deity Mic:⤶⤶Instagram: ⤶Facebook: ⤶Twitter:⤶Website:⤶⤶#JapaneseFood

Channel Data:

Name|ToKini Andy

^/u/SmallYTChannelBot ^made ^by ^/u/jwnskanzkwk. ^PM ^for ^bug ^reports. ^For ^more ^information, ^read ^the ^FAQ.

u/AnoiaDearheart · 1 pointr/photography

So, the old kit lens on my T1i has officially crapped out (it was 7 years old, rip little guy) I've mostly self-taught the absolute basics and just dabbled and had fun on road trips and vacations. However, now I'm starting to take an interest in getting back into basic photography. I've started visiting friends around the US and gone on hiking and backpacking trips and really want some memorable shots.

I just ordered myself a nifty 50mm lens for $125 off Amazon, as well as a tiny tripod and a lens hood and polarizer. However, now that I'm going hiking more often I'd also like to invest in a decent wide angle lens for some beautiful landscape shots.

For the kinds of shots I want to take (mountain shots, landscape, scenery) is it worth it for me to get the 10-18mm or just stick with the basic 24mm? Any advice is welcome :)

Edit: a couple words

u/ZeroSerenity · 1 pointr/photography

Here's a 24mm, do you think it would be okay? All the 20s I see are in excess of $500 (more than I hope for).

u/TheCannonMan · 1 pointr/Cameras

So I don't know anything apart from what I just looked up, so take everything with a grain of salt

It was announced in 2008, somewhat old, 12MP is plenty of resolution so I'm sure you could take great images with it still.

Does it have a lens? Something like a 18-55 kit lens?

If you need a lens something like

Would be solid, inexpensive options that would produce great image quality, plus you could use them with newer Canon APS-C cameras if you upgraded to something like a 7D in the future.

You should be able to mount any EF/EF-S lenses on it, and in general the glass is more important than the camera. But I'd probably buy a more modern version before dropping big $$ on like an 70-200 2.8 L lens or something, if only just for the improvements in usability that come with 9 years of software changes.

But you can start making great images on basically anything.

Hope that helps

u/Richthe1 · 1 pointr/canon

Thanks for your feedback!

Is this the lens you're talking about?

In ELI5 terms, what does that lens do? And I assume the lens would be compatible(I don't know much about EF-S)?

Should I skip the kit lens?

u/DemoFly · 1 pointr/photography

If I were in your shoes I would buy this lens:

Then, you should go out and shoot the crap out of everything and learn what focal lengths you like.

Most will say to buy the 50mm F1.8 STM lens, as it's essentially the right of passage for new Canon owners.

u/idiosyncproductions · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Get yourself one of these, they call it the "nifty 50". Godsend of a lens at a shallow budget like yours, with a fast aperture that usually yields beautiful bokeh. They're $125 on amazon, but I've seen them for around $90.

There's also this video which highlights some alternative choices for lenses.

Whatever you do, look for lenses that have a constant aperture for their focal range. Those EF-S lenses will darken as you zoom in, which could end up being a big problem as you use them.

u/nuckingfuts73 · 1 pointr/photography

Someone just posted this but this is a wonderful starter camera with a decent lens for $300 and if you have the money I would buy this as well its a fantastic lens that is especially good for portraits

u/MegsHusband16 · 1 pointr/photomarket

You can purchase these brand new on amazon for $125 or used for about $80.
This is a great lens and I know you’ll be happy with it when you get one!

u/justfred · 1 pointr/photography

A 50mm (or similar) "prime" lens is a great way to practice improving your photos. The quality will be better than your zoom, but what may help more is developing the discipline of framing your shots without using a zoom.

Plus, it doesn't cost much (for the Canon f1.8), so it's worth a try!

u/randomanalysis · 1 pointr/NewTubers

If you're shooting with a DSLR and not getting enough light, try buying a prime lens, such as this one. They have a lower F-Stop number (or aperture),so it allows more light in and lowers the depth of field (creates a bokeh/blurry background that looks nice for youtube).They are also cheaper than a big lens, but remember, they don't zoom in. It's a "fixed" lens.

50mm might be too close, so if you are in a smaller room, try the 24mm. This creates a nice wide-angle appearance too. Both of these have a quiet auto focus (CANON STM) if you absolutely need it too.

u/J03K · 1 pointr/photography

You might try the canon 50mm 1.8. It's cheap and I hear it has an awesome DoF for portraits.

u/kiramiryam · 1 pointr/photography

It’s this one. I shot towards the sun in the past and it was fine, this session was the first time I noticed an issue.


u/GoExistential · 1 pointr/photography

I would recommend finding a great deal on a (better) body, like a t5i/t6i and then purchasing a lens like this. But that also really depends on what you want to shoot, this lens is NOT very wide. But is much sharper and can get a very shallow/blurry background in portraits. It also can shoot much better in low light conditions.


In regards to camera body, that decision is tough because of price differences. The two I mentioned will most likely feel higher quality. The t5i has a similiar sensor, same resolution and can possibly shoot better in low light. T6i has a much better sensor, higher resolution and again i'd assume better low light performance

u/trefur · 1 pointr/photographs

50 1.8

Great starter lens, will give you some bokeh to play with without the crazy price tag. 35 is also a great focal length. Closest you will get on a crop us this 24 (38 ish with the crop factor)

24 2.8 pancake

u/CreeDorofl · 1 pointr/postprocessing

Oh no, not at all... $800 is fairly high for a 'nifty fifty'. The price is because the Sigma Art 50 is pretty much the sharpest lens on earth (which makes it a bargain when you compare to, say, a Zeiss Otus

Actually, on the subject of those Sigma's... I got the 50mm first, but I found 50mm on a crop sensor camera is kind of an awkward focal length. You can't go wide enough to capture, say... a building across the street, or the head+shoulders of a friend sitting across from you at a small table. But you can't zoom in either.

Later I got the 18-35, and now the 50mm basically gathers dust. The zoom range of the 18-35 is limited, but it's just 100% more useful than 50mm. It's kind of my default lens now. It's a great lens.

But anyway, if you don't wanna spend a ton and you want a 50ish mm, and below f/2, there's a bunch of options.

The basic Canon 50mm 1.4 is $300 and is pretty sharp.

The Canon pancake lens is really well loved, surprisingly sharp and so small that it weighs nothing. A sigma art is quadruple the weight lol.

This Sigma Art 30mm seems to be on sale right now. $130 off. That's an outstanding deal, and you might find 30mm more useful than 50.

u/VonBeethoven86 · 1 pointr/canon
u/pusanua · 1 pointr/SonyAlpha

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Normal Lens for Canon EF Cameras

u/SubHomesickAlien · 1 pointr/indieheads

From the little I know about photos and models, I'll try to sound like I know what I'm talking about (but I don't):

Some of your images aren't very sharp. 1/60, 1/100 shutter speed shows. Perhaps try going for bigger apertures so you can bump that shutter speed. Whatever your lens allows. (Suggesting cheap lens that's kinda nice for starters)

All I know about modeling is: don't look stiff, don't look awkward. And well, she kinda does look stiff or awkward in some of these.

Hard to take her seriously holding that thing like a cigarette because it's not a cigarette and it's a little weird.

Watch your values and lighting. It can get weird like this when her legs blend in with the chair. It's kinda cool here how it turns into a silhouette on the bottom half, but then what about this silhouette? Try covering the top of that photo and see what you can get only from the silhouette. Does it look as good as intended?

Framing looks good.

You both look amateurish because, well, it takes years and years to be a pro. I'm sure you are doing better than I would. These seem like they were a good exercise though. Keep it up. Keep trying stuff. Keep shooting, photos.

u/CatBugForever · 1 pointr/photocritique

ahha thank you! now that I'm looking at it, I wish I was at a slightly different angle too. next time, hopefully. I'll have to look up difusers. I've heard that term but I'm not exactly sure what it is. I get bouncing light off walls, yeah ill look stuff up. haha.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

I also bought this for shows. I haven't had the chance to use it yet though.

u/WineEm · 1 pointr/Photography_Gear

Just get the nifty fifty. Also known as the fantastic plastic. It’s a good lens for the price. Also maybe get a light source, these led video lights are all you need, just learn white balance editing.

NEEWER 160 LED CN-160 Dimmable Ultra High Power Panel Digital Camera / Camcorder Video Light, LED Light for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic,SONY, Samsung and Olympus Digital SLR Cameras

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

u/9HomeWorlds · 1 pointr/photography

hello! I am here to ask for some advice on a pancake lens purchase for my Canon EOS Rebel SL2

50 mm pancake (just lens) (Amazon)

50 mm pancake lens with "ZeeTee" kit (Amazon) - is it worth it to get the lens cover and filter etc for a few extra bucks?

I checked Facebook and kijiji and could not find this lens for cheaper used. Seems to be an OK deal unless I am mistaken.

I am wanting to take pictures of my wood crafts (spoons and other kitchenware) as well as family and individual portraits and nature scenery as well. I hear that this particular lens should cover all of those bases. I dont really know much about the hardware just yet (for instance, i dont yet know the difference between 40 mm and 50 mm pancake lenses or why the price seems to increase the smaller you go).

thanks in advance!

u/Chokingzombie · 1 pointr/photography

Sorry, I made this a post then saw the sidebar

So I finally decided to ditch videogames as the only hobby I have and pick up photography. I went out and bought a few things that I deemed required after I researched a little bit.

u/qrpyna · 1 pointr/AskPhotography
u/mechagrue · 1 pointr/photoclass2017

Heh, I am going to pass on this assignment, since I did all of this work last week when I was picking out a camera to buy. The main Photography Reddit has a great buying guide pinned on the sidebar, which I used to evaluate cheap DSLRs.

In the end I bought a Canon 20D off eBay for about $170. It came with a standard EFS 18-55mm lens, f/3.5-5.6. I'm saving up money for a nicer lens, I kinda have my heart set on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens.

Apparently this is the type of lens used by the Humans of New York photographer, and I really love the color, clarity, and depth of field I see in his photos. Obviously there's more to his work than the lens, but... I want the lens. :D

u/nathanpollon · 1 pointr/VideoEditing

Wrong thread, but here goes anyways. (you still get a downvote.)

In terms of sharpness, your phone will most likely look a lot better. The video footage will also be smoother because it's at 24fps. However, your camera will (maybe...) have more manual settings to work with. You'll be able to adjust things and change your picture profile to something flatter for color correction.

On top of that, you'll have a zoom lens to work with so you can choose different focal lengths as well as get shallow depth of field with other lenses (like the ever popular nifty fifty

u/greedz · 1 pointr/canon

50mm 1.8 is cheap and amazing. Great for portraits, great for beginners. In simple terms, its focal length gets you that "blurred background".

u/chubbysheep · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

As someone who loves photography and recently got into it as well, I would recommend getting the 18-55mm STM, and then buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM ( for $125. It's pretty sharp, and the bokeh effect on your pictures could make for some really cool shots, especially if you're interested in street photography. Hope this helps!

u/want2homestead · 1 pointr/photography

What are the differences between these 2 lenses? Looking to do some still shots, but mostly youtube videos / vlogs / etc

I have a canon m50 and it came with this lens:

But someone suggested I pick up this one too:

What are the differences and is it worth having both?

u/Raichu93 · 1 pointr/LosAngeles

This lens or this lens are great all-round and good in lowlight. Half of my album is with an equivalent lens like this.

If you're into ultra-wides (the other half of the album is an ultra-wide), then this lens is great, and this lens is even better but more expensive.

Those two focal lengths have carried me for the past 4 years without me ever feeling the need to get anything else. That being said, this lens I think is a must have for all Canon users. At just over $100, it will deliver great results in lowlight. Honestly it might be the best bang for buck lens in all of photography. And because it's so cheap, plus you're getting the camera free, I might even recommend getting all three, if that's in the budget.

If you want to be a little more conservative, here's what I would do: Get one of the first two I linked, shoot and play around with that for a while, and see what you find you need next. Do you want something a little more zoomed in for shallow depth of field and delicious bokeh? Get the 50mm. Do you crave getting some sweet wide shots? Get one of the ultra-wides. Let your needs decide what your second lens is, because it's a very personal choice and no one can know what you want to shoot until you try it out for yourself.

Software: Adobe Lightroom is all I use really, and it's all you need. It's designed as an all-in-one management, editing, and publishing platform.

Good luck!

u/JinxKwB · 1 pointr/Cameras

Actually, yes I really like the camera. I've taken some pretty awesome pictures with it. We bought it so we could take photos of my kid after they were born and it was worth every penny spent. We've bought a few lenses for it. If you think she might like doing any portraits you might want to pick up a 50mm lens to play around with too. You can spend thousands on lenses, but for amature photogrophy this one would be a fine addition for that.

I'm sure someone will more knowledge than myself may have more to say about it, but I personally love the camera.

u/Mrblakesonny · 1 pointr/Cameras

Sounds like shes lookingfor this lens --> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

Its an awesome lens, very sharp and a good upgrade from the kit lens.

u/gatorsss1981 · 1 pointr/photography

I am interested in getting into photography and recently ordered my first camera. I bought a Canon T5i w/ EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens and a EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens.

I am mainly interested in taking portraits, landscape and event photos. The events I work at are in everything from hotel ballrooms, private homes to convention spaces, almost always indoors with fairly dim lighting.

I've been trying to do some research on different equipment and gear that I would need, and came up with the following list. Is there anything that I don't need or a better alternative than I have listed? Is there anything I'm missing?


"Nifty Fifty" Lens -

Bag -

Memory Card -

Battery Grip -

Speedlite 430 -

Lightsphere -

Book 1 -

Book 2 -

GorillaPod -

Battery Charger -

Extra Batteries -

u/l4adventure · 1 pointr/photography

I'm a beginner. I have a rebel T5 camera and I have the 18-55mm lens that came with it.

I've struggled a bit with low light with this lens, and read a lot about how a 50mm can teach you better about positioning yourself and framing. I read up about how it's great to start off with these.

So, is this a good lens? Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM lens. The price is perfect for me, and the reviews are crazy good on amazon. Would you recommend I spend slightly more money on something else? Actually, just saw this bundle, it's the same lens plus a bunch of stuff I don't have. Maybe Ill buy this instead.

Your advice is much appreciated

u/roguereversal · 1 pointr/astrophotography

I am trying to choose between the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM prime lens ($150):

or the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM prime lens ($125):

I just want to take just some general night sky shots (when I get the opportunity). I am leaning towards the 24mm lens because I would like a wider field of view. Which lens would you recommend I get? Thank you very much!

Edit: I'm a college student on a tight budget so I really can't afford to spend more than $150

u/phylouis · 1 pointr/photography

Hi ! My first camera was a canon 70D too ! A great all around camera especially if you are into videography. About what lenses you should get, you should definitely buy the nifty fifty, it is just a fantastic lens for its price !
If you are a video enthusiast, you should consider buying the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 which has a great IQ, a nice optical stabilizer and a constant f2.8, video I made with the sigma+70d here.

Or if you can afford a canon lens, the equivalent that is this one.

Anyway, the 70D is probably one of the best camera out there to start. Make sure to read a lot of books about photography, exposure, etc.. And even consider joining /r/photoclass2017/ !

Have a great day !

u/Minus-Celsius · 1 pointr/financialindependence

Hmm. Your friend's not wrong. I live within 10 miles of a college, so craigslist might be more active in my area than yours, but they're $125 MSRP ($110 on Amazon)

I regularly see them on Craigslist for about $50.

Definitely I would stick with just the kit lens and the nifty fifty for a while. Sounds like they will cover your shooting needs at least to start. As you grow to know more about photography, you might want to get telephoto zooms, wide angle lenses, etc. but they have more specialized purposes.

u/pnw_wander · 1 pointr/astrophotography

It was $299 on B&H a few days ago and I waffled. Should've jumped on it then. I know it's only another $40, but I need to get a new bag and remote shutter too. I should say I was eyeballing this too as Lonely Speck did a decent review on it, but I feel like it isn't wide angle enough and I spend just as much money getting some on Fiverr to stitch my photos together.

Would you trust the Amazon Warehouse Deals for the same used Rokinon lense?

u/gamerlinkon · 1 pointr/photography

Which Budget Camera to buy for an absolute beginner ?

I'm planning to purchase a camera this Black Friday . This will be my first camera ever , did a lot of researching and finally it came down to two

Canon EOS 6D Mark II

Canon EOS RP Mirrorless

Finally decided to go with Canon EOS 6D Mark II for the battery life and also because RF lenses are comparatively expensive and I'm on a budget . Don't want to get the adapter either .

As for the lenses , I went for the budget wide and macro / telephoto lens

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens

As you can probably tell , I just based my search on the cheapest full frame sensors and lenses and ended up with this list .

Something about me , I am totally new to photography and don't even consider myself as an amateur . It's been almost 11/2 months since i started learning about the ins and outs of photography day in and day out , all i have right now is passion and theoretical knowledge but 0 practical skills . So this purchase is just to help better myself as a photographer ( If i can call myself that ) .

And all the Youtube videos are referring to APS-C Cameras when I search for "Best Camera under 1000$" . Not a single one of them talks about Full Frame Cameras , I know that the company would have to cut some corners to justify the full frame under 1000 but I can't think of how an APS-C can beat a Full Frame when it comes down to it .

If you could tell me what makes them so special than a full frame equivalent . It'll be helpful for me to weigh the pros and cons to finally make a educated decision . So please guide me in the ways of Photography , thank you all .

u/Abalamahalamatandra · 1 pointr/photography

Start with the 50mm 1.8 STM, if she doesn't have that she can't go wrong getting it. I use it for portraits outside quite nicely and on EF-S it has a little bit of zoom over the same lens on a full-frame camera.

It's the fact that it goes down to 1.8 (the lower the f-stop number, the more background blur or less depth of field you can get with it) that you're looking for. I believe there's also a 1.4, but it's more expensive and overkill for this stage.

IMHO every EF-S photographer should have this lens in their kit, especially because it's so cheap.


u/pridebrah · 1 pointr/photography

Could someone give me a reasonably priced (<$1000) camera and lens I should use for fashion-based photography such as these pictures?:

So far I've been looking at the Rebel line of cameras from Canon and a 50mm f/1.8 lens ( )

u/TheEyeofEOS · 1 pointr/analog

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is a much better lens than the 1.4.

Personally if you're looking for just primes and not a zoom lens, I'd snag a 40mm STM for street photography/general walk around and a 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work and skip the 50. You can buy them used for cheaper with warranties from places like BH Photo or Adorama. If you need anything specialized like a 600mm for a project, just rent it from any lens rental company.

If you want an off camera flash for portrait work, these work great. Fully ETTL II compatible, it does all the flash power calculations for you automagically, even wirelessly. You can have up to like 24 of them or something crazy, all controlled by the camera.

u/BlindlyTyping · 1 pointr/photography

Nifty fifty, if you don't have it start there.

u/electricsheep12345 · 1 pointr/solotravel

I highly recommend against a tripod. They are cumbersome and a pain to carry around.

If you are thinking to use the tripod for low light/night shooting I recommend buying a fast lens. I have a Canon and I have this lens.. Great for low light and not expensive!

Regarding video ... what do you actually plan to do with the video? I shoot the odd video buy just with my iPhone and hand held.

u/SpectrusYT · 1 pointr/streetwear

also, when I had only kit lenses, the aperture only went to F5.6. I got this lens off of amazon to get the "blurred backgrounds" that you may want. (the lower the aperture, the less light the lens lets in, therefore blurred background) link

u/BustaferJones · 1 pointr/Bladesmith

My wife is the photographer. It's a new lens, so I happen to have the info handy. It is mounted on a Digital Rebel SLR.

It's been doing some very artsy stuff with the depth of field in the recent knife pics.

u/jam6618 · 1 pointr/videography

some say the sony a7sii "makes light", rather it is just great at low light capture and has amazingly clean images/video at a high iso. That combined with a lens with a wide aperture and you get great performance. I would recommend you get a sony a7s mk1 or mk2 or a sony a6300 or a6500, depending on your budgets as all have fairly good low-light performance with the a7sii being the best of them. As for a lens, you could go for an adapter to use your canon lenses but if you do not have a canon lens with a nice wide aperture like f/1.8 or better, it would be good to pick up a lens like that. If you choose to move entirely to sony as so many people have recently, you will want a good all around lens too. Let me know if you need more help!

u/ellipsis9210 · 1 pointr/photography

I have an Olympus OM-D E-M10 mkIII that I bought used as my first real camera. I'm enjoying it a lot so far as an amateur. I have the 14-42mm EZ lens on it.

I'm looking to expend to maybe one or two affordable prime lenses, as I've heard the lens I have is only okay as a starter lens.

The panasonic 25mm is great for the price, and seems to be just what I'm looking for as a simple portrait lens. I also see a lot of 7artisans lenses on amazon, thoughts on those?

I'm also looking for a wide angle, large aperture lens to have some fun with shooting night shots/night sky. Any recomandations?

u/TheUnknownable · 1 pointr/photography

Thanks. I'm looking at these two lenses.

Panasonic Lumix 20mm:

Panasonic Lumix 25mm:

Is the lack of image stabilization a problem for handheld photos?

u/chaikulis · 1 pointr/PanasonicG7

panasonic 25mm it is also cheap one :)

u/tonydaazntiger319 · 1 pointr/videography

The micro four thirds sensor has a x2 crop factor compared to the 35mm equivalent that is most Canon/Nikons. So native 25mm lens like this will have the same field of view as a 50mm on Full Frame. That's why generally, for the micro four thirds system, the common focal lengths for prime lens that you buy are 12mm (25mm equivalent), 17.5 (35mm equivalent), 25 (50mm equivalent) and 42.5 (85mm equivalent). For stills, the smaller sensor size is definitely a disadvantage compared to the full frame cameras, but for video, you'll be fine.

u/moneybagmeisenheimer · 1 pointr/videography

Panasonic g7 PANASONIC LUMIX G7 4K Mirrorless Camera, with 14-42mm MEGA O.I.S. Lens, 16 Megapixels, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DMC-G7KK (USA BLACK)
does 4K at 30fps and 1080 at 60fps lens for this camera come relatively cheap.
You could easily pick up a nice prime lens PANASONIC LUMIX G Lens, 25MM, F1.7 ASPH, MIRRORLESS Micro Four Thirds, H-H025K (USA Black)
this cost $147
Everything can be found cheaper used on eBay and the kit lens will probably work fine for what your doing.
And you can dabble in photography on your free time with this setup no problem

Edit: does have mic input options for this camera if you wanna bump your sound quality up

u/i_enjoy_lemonade · 1 pointr/videography

Congratulations on purchasing the GH5, it's a great camera for the price and will help you learn a lot.

I'd like to forewarn you... MKBHD shoots his videos in 8K on a RED cinema camera. No GH5 will ever be able to match that resolution or image quality. But... YouTube compression in mind? You can get pretty damn close.

Before you start buying lenses, make your decision about which system to adopt (EF vs. M43) carefully. There's a saying around here that goes something like "a camera is temporary, but glass is for life" meaning that investing in lenses should be done so carefully because you will have them for a long time.

I'm not sure what your budget is, but for a hobbyist/beginner, staying on the micro four-thirds side will be cheaper.

A great lens that's cheap, has a sharp image, and can produce a very similar result to what MKBHD makes is the Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Fast prime, basically M43's "nifty fifty" (keeping in mind the 2X crop factor).

That lens will get it done. To produce a product similar to MKBHD, you are better off spending your money on good audio equipment and good lighting. Your camera with that lens should be enough to get you there with those things in mind.

u/praneeth999 · 1 pointr/DFWClassifieds

Below camera and lenses are up for sale

Olympus E-M10 Black Body (certified reconditioned - 90-day repair warranty and 30-day money back guarantee, never used ) - $300 OBO

Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Ver. II R Black (certified reconditioned - 90-day repair warranty and 30-day money back guarantee never used)- $150 OBO

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ Lens (Silver) - bought from Bestbuy - Still has 6 months warranty left - gently used- excellent condition $180 OBO

Panasonic LUMIX G Lens, 25mm, F1.7 ASPH., Micro Four Thirds - H-H025K - Black - Still has 6 months warranty left - gently used- excellent condition $120 OBO

Selling these as I am looking to buy PRO lenses.

u/BunsTown · 1 pointr/bmpcc

I have all EF lenses. But I use an EF to MFT adapter.
Looks like everyone is directing you to an adaptor. However... I did buy one MFT lens, and I’ve been very happy with it. Fairly inexpensive and very good quality images

25mm lumix. Not sure if you’ve heard of the canon nifty 50.... it’s just very reliable, very standard and high quality. And this is the bmpcc4k MFT alternative.

u/dreyesceron · 1 pointr/videography

I snagged this lens on the cheap to start for me. The majority of my paid work has involved talking head, corporate style interviews so this seemed right. 25mm 1.7F prime native lens.

u/kuroyume_cl · 1 pointr/photography

If you want most of the benefits of a DSLR in a portable package you can look into Micro 4/3. Something like a panasonic GX85 with a 25mm prime can fit in a jacket pocket and delive some quality shotsin all the situations you mentioned.

Hell, you can get the GX85 with a pancake zoom plus a basic telephoto, plus a 25mm prime (equivalent to the 50mm suggested above), for less than your stated budget, and that entire kit can fit into a small bag, and the body+pancake zoom is very pocketable.

u/Bit-chrusher · 1 pointr/PanasonicG7
u/Shaarr · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

PANASONIC LUMIX Professional 25mm Camera Lens G, F1.7 ASPH, Dual I.S. 2.0 with Power O.I.S., Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds, H-H025K (Black)

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Lens, for Micro Four Thirds Cameras

I have also looked at these two
I feel getting both suits my two goals best and they are different enough to justify getting both.

u/XSlevinn · 1 pointr/videography

So I'm a bit new to this stuff as well. I thought this 25mm f1.7 lens would be better for close up shots vs something like a 30mm f2.8. Is that not correct? I thought the lower the f stop, the closer you could focus?

u/funran · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Hey, I've got a Cannon Rebel XS (here I live in Oklahoma, have a tripod. Can I take a picture like this with my camera? Do I need a special lens? Any advice would be so awesome, thanks!

Oh, I also have this lens, but it's more for portraits.

u/ccb621 · 1 pointr/photography

I believe the only new lens that falls in that price range is the 50/1.8; although, you might find used lenses or non-Canon lenses in your price range.

u/dangercollie · 1 pointr/photography

To me it's a tie between this one and the Canon Nifty Fifty. I've seen so many good shots and amazing video from the Canon and it has a 4.5 star rating on over 1,700 reviews.

The Sigma only gets 4 stars.

u/Phayze87 · 1 pointr/aww

I was thinking about getting this lens. Would that make a good Nifty Fifty? Relatively cheap?

u/ZapGaffigan · 1 pointr/photography

This was my first purchase after I got tired of the kit 18-55 lens on my Canon T3i:

It will take you a long way.

u/YourFilmSchool · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Get a t2i with ML, 50mm 1.8 lens, zoom h1, or if your budget can afford it, zoom h4n. Check eBay for cheapest prices. That's everything you need and in your budget. Good luck.

u/Deusis · 1 pointr/goodyearwelt

Canon EOS Rebel T2i with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens.

I know nearly nothing about photography but this body and lens make it look like I'm competent. It's great!

u/Elevener · 1 pointr/astrophotography

While this isn't exactly wide angle, the Canon 50mm lens is great for wide-field astrophotography and it's cheap. I have it and have gotten great results with it so far.
Here is a link for it on Amazon

u/Ttownzfinest · 1 pointr/photography

I recenty bought that lens but, before I did I read the reviews on
Amazon. There are a number of people that say that the lense got stuck on their camera as well. It seems they had to send it to Canon to have fixed. It doesn't sound good for you. Sorry.

u/unshift · 1 pointr/photography

I have the Canon XSi, and I would recommend buying it without the kit lens, and instead getting a 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5.

u/Speaking_Jargon · 1 pointr/photocritique

It's a straight-up Canon Nifty Fifty.
I only own two lenses at this point: the aforementioned 50mm and a kit 18-200mm.

u/greengreens · 1 pointr/aww
u/Sailorcuff · 1 pointr/photography

Would getting the 80d with the 18-135 f/3.5 kit as well as a canon 50mm f/1.4 be a good starting set up?

u/MetsToWS · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

What's the difference between these two lenses? Would the f/1.4 be worth it?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Also, should I be concerned about buying refurbished from Canon or purchasing a used lens - is there anything I should look out for?

u/best_of_badgers · 1 pointr/photography

So what makes this new and better? I've got the $400 Canon version of this lens. The next step up in the Canon world appears to be the f1.2L lens, for a little over $1600.

Edit: Nevermind, I should read threads before I post things.

u/LocalAmazonBot · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: this one

|Country|Link|Charity Links|

To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

u/Paging_Dr_Chloroform · 1 pointr/amateurfights

my guess: Canon T4i with 50mm prime

Probably a canon. He probably wouldn't bring out an expensive 5d, so it's probably a t2i, t3i, t4i, etc. If you want the shallow depth of field, then you're gonna want a pretty nice lens: e.g. >$400. He doesn't zoom, so it's probably a prime lens, and it's night time and the quality is pretty good...then it's probably a prime.

u/lelumberjole · 1 pointr/photography

Awesome, thanks for this. Wasn't quite aware of what focusing screens were, but that looks exactly like what I want.

As for the feel of the lens, I figured that they wouldn't really design the stock lenses for manual focus. I've been looking at getting a fixed 50mm for the T2i, and I'm debating between Canon's f1.8 and f1.4. I like the price of the f1.8, but it looks like it has a similar focusing system to the stock lens. I need to get to a store where I can handle them side by side so I can decide myself, but has anyone out there had experience with these two lenses who has anything to say about them? I've looked up comparisons online and the 1.4 seems to produce better images, but does anyone know if it has a smoother focus?

u/MartinBananas · 1 pointr/photography

Definitely my Canon 50mm f1.4. Has been my go-to lens for a long time.

u/watsoned · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Two of them for now. I have others that I was shown that I'm making grabby hands at, but they'll have to wait.

I'm looking at this 50 1.4 and this 50 1.8. They came highly recommended.

u/jrshaul · 1 pointr/photography

>A $500 lens (which doesn't even work right without a $400 metabones adapter) is cheap?

You mean this $330 E-mount lens?

>Meanwhile, I can get a 50mm f/1.4 canon lens for $50

They're $300. And really, really soft wide open - especially on crop.

Thanks for playing.

u/Sultan_of_Slide · 1 pointr/balisong

Yep, Canon 50mm F1.4. My first prime lens so I was hoping that it would come out sharp.

Also I was interested in how that F1.4 depth of field would look. Hence the bokeh.

u/lemonpjb · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Kit lenses usually just aren't that great. They're built for cheap versatility, so they do nothing particularly well. You would be surprised, though, at how little you have to spend for a decent prime lense. For instance, this is quite a good lens from Canon for under $400 USD. It even has a cheaper counter part for around $120.

Both are good lenses, IMO, and in the opinion of quite a few others around here.

u/vanillawafercaper · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

1- This lens would be an amazing addition to my camera equipment. It is over $110 but I do have less than that remaining to go before I can buy it.

2- The person I love the most is my Grandma. She is the person who has always given me the inspiration to follow what I love. She is 100% herself and no one can tell her otherwise. She was once married to my Grandpa who was a lawyer with a very rich taste: leather sofas, stained glass windows, nice cars, etc. She couldn't handle being so BEIGE all the time though, so along with other marital problems they faced, they decided to call it off. She has an condo that has (I kid you not) KELLY GREEN carpet throughout, rainbow beads in the living room, black japanese wallpaper in the dining room, a bright pink floral bedroom, and a YELLOW (straight up crayon yellow, not that pastel bullshit) kitchen. She drives a cute little honda and wears most of the same clothes she's owned for years including velvet tracksuits, leopard print flats (a staple in her wardrobe) and sequined sweaters. The only thing new that she's purchased new is probably her collection of Cardinals t-shirts/sweatshirts/hats/scarves you name it, she has it. She's a die-hard fan. If there's a Cardinals game on, we HAVE to wait until it's over or go to dinner where they'll be playing it. She is not afraid to voice her opinion and while it may annoy her children, I adore it. She is 85 and still as sassy as she was in her 20s. I love her because unlike my mother (who don't get me wrong, I love as well) she isn't afraid to bring up awkward conversations and tell me stories about her past. I love hearing her talk about going to concerts and the one time she saw Englebert Humperdinck (her FAVORITE person) and threw her panties on stage to try and get his attention. I hate that I don't get to see her as often as I'd like, as she lives 4 hours away from me. But I know her love for me is so strong that I know I could surprise her any day and she'd drop everything for me, as I would for her. My grandma & I have this special bond that I feel like no one else understands. I love her so much. I can't wait to visit her again. <3

3- Cartoon version of my grandma

4- 567

5- Thank you! You have a fantastic day as well! <3 <3

u/custerc · 1 pointr/IAmA

Well it's not really my career, it's just something I wanted to do so I decided to do it and did it. Honestly, I'd recommend you do the same. These days, the equipment is very good and very cheap (compared to even 10 years ago) and there are tons of free resources online.

Honestly, I just bought a camera and started making little mini-docs about random stuff just for practice. For example, my brother graduated from high school, so I went back and made a little mini-documentary about that, with interviews with my parents and such. I didn't do anything with it; the whole thing was just for practice. Once I got to the point where I felt like I was good enough to make something watchable given a little funding and a lot of time, then we started working on Living with Dead Hearts.

If you want to get into making documentaries as a career, you should know that you're sort of taking a vow of poverty (it's very rare that a documentary does the Michael Moore thing and plays in major theaters or rakes in much money). Especially given that, I'd say avoid film school; take some film classes at your college if you can while majoring in something else, and mostly just buy a camera and learn by doing.

You can buy a Canon 60D body, a couple good lenses (the 50mm 1.4 is great for interviews, Tokina 11-16 is wonderful for wider stuff and handheld shooting), a Zoom H4N and a mic or two for well under $3,000, especially if you buy used (and you should as long as the goods are still OK). But honestly even if you're just shooting with an iPhone, the best advice is just to go start shooting mini-docs and learning about how to tell stories and communicate best in that form. Also watch docs and see what you like and don't like, what you think works and what doesn't. I don't know if my film is any good, but anything good in it is probably something I stole from other docs.

I found these two books to be very helpful, if you can only afford two:

Shut up and Shoot Documentary Guide - great basic overview of a lot of the basics, with illustrations. How to mic someone correctly, how to frame a shot properly, etc. All the practical skills you need to get started are here.

Directing the documentary - A film school textbook that covers EVERYTHING, from this history of documentary filmmaking to the practical stuff and, probably most importantly, the conceptual and ethical stuff. It's written as though you'll be directing a film with a real crew (you won't) and it's full of homework-style exercises like a textbook (some useful) but it's very worthwhile for the ethics stuff alone. As I've touched on elsewhere in this thread, shooting a doc can put you in some ethically tough positions, and you want to be sure you've thought out where you stand before you're sitting in someone's living room realizing you've just ruined their life.

u/FitnessRegiment · 1 pointr/Filmmakers
u/3b951O9x3QihaPK6Ml72 · 1 pointr/photography

Thanks! I am considering it because of the price. And I mostly take portraits out and about. But was also looking at this. Could you please compare the nifty fifty with this?

u/pigferret · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Are you a photographer?

A 50mm f1.4 lens will blow your mind.


u/iStareAtButtholes · 1 pointr/Watchexchange

Is it this lens that’s $255 used on Amazon? Any pics? Pics with time stamp?

u/Panaetius · 1 pointr/beards

A Canon EOS 500D SLR; and I took the standard kit lens (18-55mm) with me, for weight reasons. It's my most versatile and my worst lens... Been thinking about getting the 17-55mm lens for long hikes, which is as versatile, a lot heavier, but also a lot better in quality.

u/karlgnarx · 1 pointr/photography

Agreed that it all depends on the specific lens you are looking at. Taken with a grain of salt, I would trust user reviews, image searches from somewhere like and to give you an idea of the what lens is capable of and what caliber/type of photographers generally use it.

Here is a search on that Tamron 10-24 from

Personally, I have the Tamron 17-50 and couldn't be happier, given the price and the quality for my Canon XTi. However, I probably would have bought the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 if I had the money. I have used the Sigma 30mm and thought it was very good. I also have the Sigma 10-22 and my wife has the Tamron 18-270. The 10-22 can be fairly sharp and the 18-270 is pretty good for what it is. One can't expect tack sharpness and perfection from a super zoom like that.

tl;dr - totally depends on the actual lens model.

u/HomieMcBro · 1 pointr/photography

I have a 5D with two lenses: a 24-105mm f/4 and a 50mm f/1.8. I'm really into astrophotography and I've tried it a handful of times with what I have but my results are below average. My camera's ISO only goes up to 1200 so I have to work with that.

I'm looking for a lens around $500, something like this. Would this be a good fit for astrophotography? Just want a wide angle lens with the largest aperture possible.

u/the_killionaire1 · 1 pointr/photography

What about the issues I've seen with that tamron lens and its focus and sharpness issues?

Is this a good lens?

u/waterbottlebandit · 1 pointr/funny

Amazon pranked me a year ago. I ordered this lens:

And instead got a used sigma lens in the box.

Amazon got me a replacement after some confusion though. Same thing happened this year with some wireless headphones from Amazon. Someone returned some cheaper head phones in the wireless box. People suck.

u/pranav_koundinya · 1 pointr/Nikon

It’s this one : Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

I haven’t tried the AF-P lens but this lens is soft beyond 200mm. I’m considering upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8 though.

u/-twrm- · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

and this one but im not too sure

u/Regrenos · 1 pointr/photography

Consider the 70-300mm or 55-300mm or 300mm f/4 instead. The first is a very good quality zoom lens that will allow you to change zoom for framing, the second is a cheaper version of the same, and the third is a very good prime. I have the 55-300mm and I found that I use it for birds and such, almost 99% of the time at 300mm. I think if I were to reconsider the purchase I would go for the 300mm f/4, epecially because it allows the use of teleconverters. If you go for the 18-300mm, you sacrifice a large amount of quality in all focal lengths. It isn't worth it. With the budget you have for the 18-300mm, you can get the 70-300mm and gain quite a lot of quality or the 300mm prime and find yourself with an amazing birding/wildlife lens. If you stick a 2x teleconverter on there, you have 960mm f/8 lens on an APS-C body - basically a telescope, but also amazing for birds (but a little lacking in low light).

u/vurt · 1 pointr/photography

Is it worth it to buy FX lenses for a DX/APS-C camera? I'm looking at picking up this Nikon 70-300mm as my first decent lens beyond my kit lens that came with my D3300. I was told by a fellow photographer that I should just save the extra money and get something like this instead. I don't believe I'll ever be purchasing a full frame camera as I cannot justify the cost for a simple hobby. I'm mostly getting into photography just to get myself outside and off my ass. I also really enjoy a creative outlet and the post-processing stuff is very helpful in that regard.

So long story short, does that Tamron lens really gain me anything other than a faster aperture and the ability to upgrade to a full frame body down the road, however unlikely that may be?

u/k_uger · 1 pointr/photography

I shoot Canon, but for that Budget Nikon has a much better selection. Body doesn't matter so much, but a faster frame rate and more AF points will be helpful for birds. If you can afford it, I would recommend a d7200. If not, go for the d5500. You could even go super cheap and buy a refurbed older body (d7000 etc.).

The d7200 has a faster frame rate, more AF points, more cross type AF points, and a more rugged build. The d5500 has a tilty touch screen, and is much lighter. Most other differences are trivial (sensor is exactly the same).

For a lens, I can personally recommend the 18-200mm VR II DX f/3.5-5.6 (~$600). It's a great zoom for just about anything. If you need to get tighter, consider the 70-300mm VR DX FX f/4.5-5.6 for a little less money. If you want to spend a little bit more, I also had a 28-300mm VR FX f/3.5-5.6 (~$1000), which is an absolutely fantastic, but extremely heavy lens. Also much more expensive.

If your dad's only going to be shooting birds and wildlife, I would say the tighter 70-300mm would be great. For a do-all zoom, I would go for the 18-200mm or the 28-300mm if I could afford it.

These are just my personal reccomendations, somebody might have some better suggestions.

Here are the amazon links:
Nikon d5500
Nikon d7200
Nikon 18-200mm VR II DX
Nikon 70-300mm VR DX FX
Nikon 28-300mm VR FX See edit below

Edit: mistakes

Edit 2: I just realized there's an 18-300mm VR DX for the same price as the 28-300mm VR FX, which would make much more sense if you plan on sticking with DX. Optics should be virtually the same, just better designed for DX.

u/graffiti81 · 1 pointr/gardening

Most brands, whether we're talking cannon, nikon, pentax etc, will have both brand name and off brand macro lenses available. Sigma makes a pretty good lens.

As I said, my 70-300VR (which isn't a macro) will still take decent macros, so you don't absolutely have to have a 1:1 lens.

u/Kmccb · 1 pointr/videography

Thanks for the reply!

I've just never had luck trying to record with it.. I have a Nikon 70-300 that I use with it and while trying to record I just have issues with focusing and zooming smoothly etc..

u/MeMuzzta · 1 pointr/photography
u/britchesss · 1 pointr/Nikon

Sorry to keep up with questions and links, but is thiswhat you're talking about?

u/Yycdani · 1 pointr/photography

I want to get a new telephoto lens, I currently have a ancient Nikon 70-300 without image stabilization and it's crap, and I am looking at the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD or the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Should I bother with either of these? I don't want to spend that much money on another disappointing lens, but a really good telephoto is way out of my budget at the moment. I couldn't spend more than around $800 CAD (so like $3.50 USD - jokes, more like 500-600USD) and alternatively I just wait and save and take photos with other lenses and of other things. I'm a hobbyist.

u/kylake · 1 pointr/Nikon

Hi, this is a rather interesting question! First of, congratulations on your decision to get the D7100! There are plenty of Nikon Len(s) to choose from and given that you might eventually head towards more wildlife and landscape kind of photography you will need mainly 2 kinds of lens. This is based on my opinion and the thoughts may vary differently across different photographers.

Wildlife Lens:

  1. Get something with a wider focal range. For starts you should aim for something that is at least 100m-200m. If you are really serious about it there are prime lenses such as the Nikon 300m f2.8 and the Nikon 500m f4 that being said prime lenses with a lower aperture will definitely cost a lot more.

  2. Take into consideration whether you prefer a zoom or prime.

  3. If you are going for a zoom, for starts, you might want to consider the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 which can be doubled up as a really good portrait lens.

  4. The 70-200m above as mentioned is super versatile and 1 of the 3 "trinity lens for Nikon", the other 2 being the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lens.

  5. I really recommend getting the 70-200mm as you might end up saving a lot of money at the end of the day; go straight for the cream.

    Landscape Lens:

  6. This kind of lens varies a lot from other lenses as it might differ from photographer to photographer how wide is a wide lens and what kind of landscape you might want to take.

  7. Judging based on your question on the quality wise, I own a Nikon 24mm f1.4 and the quality of the photos that come out are splendid. I personally choose Prime over Zoom as I seek for quality imo.

  8. A 35mm prime is another option as well as it doubles up as a very good lens for portrait and street photography. Another way to counter an issue with the "wideness" of the lens is to be skilful at Stitching Photos which can be referred to from here at Adobe Photoshop.

  9. This method can greatly allow you to save up on money and be a more versatile photographer at home/work if you don't mind the hassle of editing and stitching the photos up.

  10. An ideal lens would be anything below 24mm if you really want to capture as much detail of the landscape as possible.

    Quality of Lens:

  11. There are many levels of quality which Nikon has to offer and of which are mainly differentiated by the kind of glass/plastic or in other words materials they use for their lens.

  12. Types of Lens

  13. Quality as well varies between the user, do you want something which has auto focus or manual focus might be one of the first questions you ask.

  14. If you've decided on that, and judging from what I see, you are seeking for under $200 for something used. In my opinion you should get the 24mm prime if you have got enough money to spare. Get one of the basic Nikon 50mm - its like nearly every Nikon photographer has this correct me if I am wrong

  15. Alternatively you can check out this link: for some of the top picks people have.


  16. If you are seeking for an everyday lens, get one of the standard zoom lens for your D7100.

  17. If you are aiming to upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future, it might be more ideal to get the fx lenses, like what I've mentioned the 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200.

  18. For wildlife and landscape at the same time, for the budget you've mentioned, I recommend the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6

  19. One Of The Sources

    I hope some of my basic insights can narrow down your choice of lens and help you understand better based on the sources I have provided, alternatively you might wanna check youtube out too for extra information, there are lots of peeps there who do reviews :)
u/KaJashey · 1 pointr/photography

I shot stunning equine pictures with a Nikkor 70-300 VR on a crop camera. I would take your longest zoom. How far does your kit reach?

You generally have a lot of things going for you. Lots of light. The owners and riders have put enormous work into their horses and their sport. You are generally shooting up at the riders and they look heroic/equestrian

Treat it like sports photography and try and freeze them with 1/500th of a second or faster shots. Get on the end of the ring and shoot them oncoming with a long zoom. Think about what is behind them.

u/Flojani · 1 pointr/photography

Could anyone explain to me the differences between these two lens? Could someone also tell me which would be better and why? The more detail the better! If which camera they will be used on matters... It'll be a Nikon D5200.

Lens 1: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Lens 2: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

u/JasonZX12R · 1 pointr/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

I have a friend that thinks its useless as well. I have had a few debates with her about it. I have this zoom lens

And while it wont work miracles in low light, it does help. Even in daylight it helps to get solid shots. These were both taken on a boat. Neither are good photos, just junk stuff, but help illustrate some VR help. The one was taken at 1/500 other at 1/1000 so the help may be dubious, but the one was at 300mm. Couldnt find any other long shots I took from a boat =)[email protected]/3486729087/in/set-72157617492273220/[email protected]/3535315600/in/set-72157618132893297/

u/ConnorRoss · 1 pointr/astrophotography


Nikon 70-300 f/4.5G

Nikon D610

Hoya Pro ND 1000





ISO 50

u/JimmySticks2001 · 1 pointr/Nikon

I also have a D3300 and I just received my 70-300mm. I decided on this after about 2 weeks of researching telephoto lenses. Since there are newer models of the lens the price of this one has dropped to a nice price range for my entry into a zoom lens. The autofocus is impressive for an older lens and the stabilization is nice, although it took some getting used to at first. It doesn't stabilize when not actively shooting. It only kicks in after autofocusing, or I guess, whenever pressing half-way down on the shutter button. It took some getting used to as my kit lens is always stabilized.

I love it so far. I have only taken it out once at dusk/sunset and the low light performance was excellent. I got a neat picture of a boat dog.

u/Sheehan7 · 1 pointr/photography

Follow up to the other comment I posted: I have a Canon T3 w/ 50mm 1.8 STM and the 18-55mm kit lens. I want more lenses such as something a step up from the kit lens, and a longer one for sports or wildlife. Thing is as a college student I don't have a ton of money to throw around so sub $300 lenses are ideal if still a little pricey to me. I liked the 55-250mm but hear it's not that good.

Any suggestions of lenses I should pick up, not just for my examples I gave but in general lenses that are good for the T3? I know it's kind of a hard question given my budget

u/Wr3ckin_Cr3w · 1 pointr/photography

Hey all,

Years ago I purchased a Rebel T2i that came with a 18-55mm IS lens. I then added on a 55-250mm IS II and a 55mm.

I haven't shot with them as much as I should have, but i'm now getting back into it. I'm about to add hood lenses to all of them (tip from a Youtube video I saw) and I will get out and start shooting more. My interest range from landscape, structures, portrait and anything really. I do have two questions though!

  1. I'm thinking about adding a wide lense, specifically thing one Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS What do you guys think about that one? Looking at this as a general "do-all" lens for normal shooting.
  2. Any other tips/hints for me?

u/kangaroooooo · 1 pointr/photography

Hello everybody. I know there's probably not much you can do to help me with my current dilemma, but I really appreciate your help.

So here's the deal: I have about $200 to spend on lenses, and I have two I'm deciding between. They have very different purposes, quality, and benefits. I can't decide which one I'll use more. Here they are.

  • Canon 40mm f/2.8

    For this, the benefits are that it is very small, and very light. I'm going to Iceland soon, and I feel like having a small, very portable lens might be a really big benefit. Also, the image quality is supposed to be pretty good.

    On the other hand, that focal length is already covered by my 18-55mm kit lens. Is the image quality really good enough to justify spending $160?

  • Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II

    This has a great zoom range, and is perfect for taking pictures of cycling, my other hobby. However, it's really big.

    Which should I get?
    I know you can't solve my problems for me, but do you have any advice? In case it's important, I currently have a Canon t3i with 18-55mm kit lens.
u/SevenDimensions · 1 pointr/photography

You are right, lenses are definitely more important, especially because it seems like most of your shots will be landscapes, and you'll have plenty of time to set up the composition. You won't need expensive bodies.

Get a Canon Rebel; they're good cameras and will give you as much functionality as you'll be able to use - as this is your first DSLR.

As lenses go, I would recommend a Tamron 17-50 non-VC, which is on par with the Canon 17-40 L lens. Also, you might want to consider a telephoto; my suggestion for this would be the Canon 55-250 IS, which is also a great lens.

u/thedailynathan · 1 pointr/photography

You don't state a budget, but one of the cheapest will be Canon's 55-250 IS:

It'll be pretty effective, and lightweight. The only way you could do better for a similar size range is to go for the Canon 70-300 IS - it gets you slightly more range but is definitely bigger and more expensive.

If you really, really want to go compact, the smallest I know of is Sigma's 55-200. Be aware that it doesn't have IS though, so keeping the camera steady enough may be difficult:

Also you might want to check with the particular venue about what kinds of cameras they will allow. Many of them have restrictions such as no lenses longer than 3 inches, or no SLRs entirely.

u/kolosok17 · 1 pointr/photography

Hi guys, I am not sure whether this is a good place to post this, so please feel free to delete if it violates the rules.

I am looking to upgrade from a Canon T3 to a smaller, potentially mirrorless, camera. I would like to sell my T3 + gear and use that cash toward the new camera.

What is a reasonable price to ask for this stuff:

Canon EOS Rebel T3 Digital SLR Camera DS126291

Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS II

Tiffen 58mm UV Protection Filter

Case Logic SLRC-201 SLR Zoom Holster (Black)

AmazonBasics Backpack for SLR/DSLR Cameras and Accessories - Black

Generic 58mm Hood

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens - Fixed

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens


u/RazRaptre · 1 pointr/Cameras

> It sounds like the 250 IS might be the way I want to go for my specific needs at this point, though!

Do you mean this lens?

I have the same lens, it's pretty great for the price! I wouldn't trade the IS for an extra 50mm. Also since it's discontinued, your only option is the new STM version of the lens. I think it's maybe $50 more than the older model, and should focus faster.

u/elusiveemily · 1 pointr/tennis

I shot with a 7D & my 55-250 mm lens which to be totally honest I don't love.

u/MrTreesy · 1 pointr/wildlifephotography

That would give you an advantage! 😃

I would recommend either the 70-300mm or 55-200mm. There's a price difference of course, but both great choices. Naturally a benefit of having an extra 100mm. Though make sure to get the lens with IS because it will make a difference. They do sell a 70-300mm lens without IS but I'd avoid.

u/CosmonautDrifter · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

So you think a 70-200 would be good enough alone for just starting out?

No need to buy a 50mm prime lens?

This is the 70-200 I was thinking about buying for her. There is also this one. I'm not really sure the difference except for price.

This is the 50mm

u/farkonian · 1 pointr/photography

Definitely consider the plastic fantastic (F1.8/50mm) and maybe this: 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.

u/upvoteforyouhun · 1 pointr/photography

Your response is exactly what I need.

I currently have a Canon EF 55-250 and a Canon Ef 18-55.

u/PhilipGreenbriar · 1 pointr/photography

This is the amazon page and that's definitely something to consider. I already have this lens which isn't macro but it does well if a subject is 3.5 ft away

u/digiplay · 1 pointr/photography

I think That's the wrong lens. You want the 55-250 is stm.

If you're going with the older one I'd get it from amazon

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens (discontinued by manufacturer)

u/Eyemajeenyus · 1 pointr/photography

Hello r/photography!
I recently saved up enough money to buy my first serious camera. This Cannon EOS Rebel T3 caught my attention and I keep reading in the reviews that it is an excellent entry level camera. Is that a true statement? I would be willing to shell out some extra money for this T3i if it would be a better buy.
This Cannon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 or this Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 seem like good lenses to go along with them, but are they too much to soon?
Again, this would be my first major camera purchase. Would this be a solid purchase or is there another cheaper camera that would be just as good?

u/sergi0wned · 1 pointr/photography

I recently went on a once in a lifetime trip to France for two weeks, so hopefully I can provide some helpful advice/insight.

First, and I cannot stress this enough, have enough memory! I'd recommend bringing at least 16GB, if not more.
I brought two 8GB cards to France and transfered them to my computer each night. I never used the second card, however, if I wouldn't have had the luxury of transferring to a laptop each night, I would have quickly exceeded this.
If you are able to bring a computer or other means by which to back up your photos, I'd STRONGLY recommend it. It's great peace of mind to not have to worry about losing pictures or running out of room.

Second, DO NOT use the Auto mode, that just makes your DSLR a big point and shoot. A lot of people recommend using M(anual), but it can be a little overwhelming if you're not used to your camera. The Av (Aperture Priority) mode is great because it allows you to select the aperture value you want (which will effect what's in focus and Depth of Field) while automatically determining the rest. Constipated_Help gave you some very sound advice on exposure, so follow that if you're able.

Third, make sure you have the right accessories. A tripod would be great for landscape shots. The Dolica Proline is a great value at 40$. At least one extra battery would be good to have, especially if you will not be able to recharge during the trip. An Opteka t2i battery can be had for 12$, and works with your Canon charger.

If you can swing it, a new lens would be good to have since the lens is the determining factor of image quality. If you like to "zoom" and isolate subjects, you'll want a telephoto. The Canon 55-250 IS is a great deal at 240$. If you like wide angle, you'll need an ultra wide. These will typically run above 400$. I have a Tokina 11-16 and I am very pleased. As others have recommended, the Canon 50 1.8 is an incredible deal at 100$ and provides creative options with it's wide aperture.
A nice bag is also a good thing to have. You can buy either a messenger style, a holster or a backpack. Filters would also be nice, but they're not a necessity.

I hope this can help. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to (try to) help! :)

u/magical_midget · 1 pointr/photography

For that budget the only one you can get new is the 55-25mm canon

However there is the canon 70-200 f4 L non IS that would also work well, you will have to buy it used and it does not have image stabilisation (meaning you will need a fast shutter speed, but for sports you probably need that already)

If you can get the used 70-200 f4 L non is used for cheap near you go for that

u/frenchy612 · 1 pointr/photography

Awesome! A user in this thread linked this lens as a suggestion on eBay. I'm always hesitant over buying over eBay over the fear of the product being damaged and possible long delivery. Would it be worth it over this lens I previously linked to you?

u/gravity_sandwich · 1 pointr/NatureIsFuckingLit

This lens is pretty cheap. It's a kit lens that came with my t3i. Took this photo with it today.

u/EnglishTraitor · 1 pointr/BestPhotographyDeals

I bought this camera two years ago and have loved it. Feel free to ask me any questions about it.

Lowest price the 60D has ever been, probably because of the recent release of its successor, the 70D. Check out this page for more information on the lens bundle deals

u/vinng86 · 1 pointr/photography
u/Namaztak · 1 pointr/shutupandtakemymoney

Clicked your link expecting this.

Wasn't necessarily disappointed.

u/yodawgiherd · 1 pointr/todayilearned

With that logic we should chip in and buy some Uranium Or a Super lens

u/--Hello_World-- · 1 pointr/space

Have you thought about getting this lense for your camera? I really think it would improve the quality of your pictures.

u/WirdSpaeterGeaendert · 1 pointr/de

Upps, da könnte ja einer mit dem berühmten Sigma 200-500 mm zur Beweissicherung auf der Lauer liegen.

u/buddhaledread · 1 pointr/photography

Thank you, I came here to post this Amazon listing. The customer-provided photos and ALL the reviews are pretty priceless. Makes me love Amazon for allowing them.

to see the others ^

u/xenonsupra · 1 pointr/humor

I've always enjoyed the reviews for this camera lens:

u/mathlete_jh · 1 pointr/photoclass2017

My camera is the Nikon D3300 with the standard kit 18-55mm lens and the kit 55-200mm lens. I will be comparing it to one of the basic full frame camera from Nikon, the Nikon D750.

The main difference between these two camera is the size of the sensor. Both camera are 24 megapixels, yet the Nikon D3300 is a cropped frame sensor, while the Nikon D750 is a full frame. This gives the D750 better capabilities in low-light photography. Also, the D750 has many more points of autofocus, allowing for better tracking of subjects and an overall improvement in moving subjects.

The lens that I use for my Nikon D3300 is what I would upgrade next. While it's not horrible, it's definitely not that great of a lens and worsens the performance of the camera. The next lens I would get would probably be this one: Link. While it is a prime lens, it would greatly improve the quality of the glass and pictures taken. Also, it's a 35mm lens, which is about the same as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera (The "nifty fifty"). Does this seem like it would be a good next lens to get? Or are there any other recommendations for lenses that would be good for my Nikon D3300?

u/DaMuffinPirate · 1 pointr/photography

I can't think of any sub $300 wide angle and fast lenses that are new. You can get the Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 for $319 new or cheaper if used, but it has no autofocus. The Tokina lens that the other guy mentioned is also good. If you're willing to sacrifice the wide angle, you can get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 which is pretty cheap at about $200.

Note that I'm not a Nikon user, and you can find a lot of information on astro from a lot of sites, especially Lonelyspeck.

u/istguy · 1 pointr/photography

I'm getting ready to go on vacation, and I'm considering buying a new lens to celebrate and have fun with. Currently, I'm shooting with a D60, and I have the 18-55mm kit lens + the 55-200 telephoto lens.

The pictures I'll be taking on the trip will probably be a mix of shots of scenery/landscapes and my friends.

I would love to get an 18-200mm lens, but the Nikon one is simply out of my price range at $600. Is the Sigma 18-200 an acceptable substitute? I like the 18-200mm coverage, because it would be very nice to just take the one lens, and not worry about changing it.

I'm also considering getting a prime lens instead, because in the future I'd like to do some better indoor shooting. Possibly the 35mm Nikon or the 50mm. My sense is that the 35mm would be great for landscapes on my trip, but that the 50mm might be better for taking pics of friends. Am I wrong?

I'd welcome any advice/opinion on which lens to get, and which lens(es) to carry with my traveling. Thanks in advance.

u/Smiley_35 · 1 pointr/photography

My SO recently bought a Nikkor DX 35 and loves it. He's looking for something more for landscapes/scenery or otherwise a good all around lens. He has two stock lenses which he does not like. Any suggestions? Apologies as I'm not familiar with any of this stuff. Thanks!

Edit: the camera is Nikkon D5100
The lenses are AF-s Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G and af-s nikkor 18-55mm 1 3.5-5.6 g

u/AerithFaremis · 1 pointr/photography

So this camera with this lens? Sorry I'm a complete noob to photography.

Thanks for helping!

u/ANiceSunset · 1 pointr/photography

I have a Nikon D5300. I have the kit lens it came with and I would like some suggestion on which lens I should go for.
What I'm looking for is a lens that will put more focus on the model (like zoomed in on the model ish) and less of the background. I noticed that in most of my photos I've gotten a lot of the background and the model/cosplayer. I would like some assistance on knowing which lens (if any) that can focus more on the model/cosplayer.

I looked online for the next lens people recommended and asked around stores like Best Buy. I read online that typically people would get the 50mm prime lense but the people at Best Buy recommended the 35mm prime due to tight corners situations, which, would've been handy at times when I was at Anime Expo. I also was told that the one in the link was an FX and since the camera i have is a DX, it gets cropped as if it were 70mm or so.

Is it safe to say that 35mm prime is better for group photos shots but the 50mm is better if you're up close? Has the cropped part of putting a FX lens on a DX camera body ever helped anyone?

u/N8Burn · 1 pointr/LosAngeles

I was thinking of getting that one but I think I want the 35mm instead. And I also want this Sigma 70-300mm.

u/jclim00 · 1 pointr/photography

I second the pocketing the $100 and putting it towards some decent glass if you decide later you need that kind of reach for birding, sports, etc. Heck use it to buy a beginner low-light capable standard prime like the nikon 35mm., which in all likelyhood you'll end up using even more than the standard 18-55 kit lens.

u/Ubiquity4321 · 1 pointr/barter

Not trying to argue or anything, everything is 100% cool with you not wanting the lens.

But I am a professional photographer, so I have to say something to help out where I can...

Do you mean the newest 50 f/1.8 G? Or an older D model? Older D models have a screw-focus mechanism and will not autofocus with D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000/5100 model cameras and will have to be manually focused anyway. And the lens is more than $200 before taxes.

If you want a "normal" (normal field of view, i.e. what your eyes see more or less) lens with the 1.5x crop of most consumer level digital cameras, you might want to look for a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G. You can see that, even used, the lens is less than $200.

And do you mean the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6? That one is $400 and has less light coming onto your sensor wide-open at f/4.5 through f/5.6. Any lens that goes from 55mm to 200mm is not going to be very sharp and will probably not focus well from about 8pm on (due to modern phase focus systems and consumer lens manufacturing).

What camera do you own?

Personally, I would look at prime lenses (lenses that are one fixed focal length) over zoom lenses - you zoom with your feet rather than with the lens and it makes you a better photographer faster because you have to use all of that slight annoyance of not zooming to get a better picture. It helps you think. In my opinion, zooming is a crutch. Prime lenses are also generally sharper because they are not trying to be sharp at all focal lengths and they are generally faster (f/1.8 as opposed to f/4.5-5.6 which means it lets more light onto the sensor).

u/boocoo · 1 pointr/photography

Prime Lens - If you don't have one, you should invest in a prime before a new body imho. Feel it out, compare, and go from there. And by prime lens, I mean specifically the Nikon 35mm 1.8. At just under $200, it's the best bang-for-your-buck.

u/Haematobic · 1 pointr/TekSyndicate

Found it! It was this one.

Mind you, I'm by no means an expert, and considering how vast the photography world is, I could really benefit from a video titled "photography for dummies".

So far I've settled for a Nikon D3300 and a 35mm f/1.8G lens (which I'll be getting in the near future), which considering my "amateur" status, should be more than enough.

I felt that this video made a better job explaining the differences between ISO levels than his, for instance.

u/Roknboker · 1 pointr/photography

I'd say do it, but you're going to have to spend the money on a lens that has the autofocus motor built into it. A great lens would be this 35mm. It's a great lens. I'm also a fan of this 50mm but it will not auto-focus on your D50.

That 35mm though, I promise you will fall in love with it, and it will still work perfectly when you upgrade cameras.

u/zixmanroll · 1 pointr/photography

Is this the 35mm I should be looking at? Worth using even as I upgrade?

u/makawk · 1 pointr/Sneakers

The extra lens you're getting is used for long distance, so it's not really ideal for streetwear photos. You're going to want a lens like a 14mm, 35mm, or even 50mm.

I would look for prime lenses (like this) because it will:

-give you a better idea on how to frame shots on your own first

-these lenses are designed to shoot quickly and they will be able to give you a blur effect which makes your subject look very crisp

I would also check out pawn shops or local camera shops to get a starter camera like this. If you do end up enjoying the hobby then you'll definitely want to upgrade your camera so don't invest in a brand new d3400 imo.

u/bostonbruins922 · 1 pointr/photography

I was looking at this
Whats the biggest difference between 35mm and 50mm? I know its a rookie question.

u/BRUTALLEEHONEST · 1 pointr/photography

I have this lens: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Is this what you mean or are you pointing at a different one? I'll try using it next time in the romantic restaurant example but in the social event example I predict it won't work well because the depth of field is too shallow at that aperture. I've taken a plate of food at f/1.8 at 3 feet away and found that even just the food on that single plate is not all in focus.