Lens question: good next-step-up or unnecessary?

[Moesha]

I thank you very much for always taking the time to respond to my silly photography questions Catlady! I meant to mention that all 3 lenses I mentioned in the previous post are the Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses. And the F numbers are similiar. The higher not as good in low light ones in the F 5.6 range on all three lenses.

[Catlady711]

I thank you very much for always taking the time to respond to my silly photography questions Catlady! I meant to mention that all 3 lenses I mentioned in the previous post are the Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses. And the F numbers are similiar. The higher not as good in low light ones in the F 5.6 range on all three lenses.

There's no such thing as a 'silly' photography question, that's how people learn things.

VR is good, it does help alot, but in lower light situations and/or with a longer heavier lens, a tripod (or other sturdy support) is still best. If using a tripod or other support be sure to turn the VR OFF. Trust me. Just be sure to turn it back on again when you go back to hand holding the shots.

F/5.6 is an average 'speed' lens. The lower the number, the wider the opening that lets light in the lens, which means better for low light photography and bokeh effects.

Given that all things are equal on the F stop, it would depend on what type of things you're going to be using the lens(es) for whether one or two would be better for you.

If you are going to be doing much for indoor shooting I'd go with the two lens set up, because you probably won't want to be lugging a heavy long lens around taking pix of the family and pets.

But if you're going to be doing alot of daylight outdoor shooting (vacations, side trips, zoo, etc) then it's possible the one lens set up would be better so you always have the focal length you need on the camera.

If at all possible see if you can find a bargain 50mm F/1.8 fixed length lens. If Nikon is anything like Canon lenses that is a fabulous lens. I use my Canon one constantly! Excellent for low light and bokeh as well as general shooting.
http://www.google.com/products/catal...ult#ps-sellers

[Catlady711]

Just for a reference on Bokah and selective focus effects...

Here's a pix I took of Bear in the heated cat bed when I got my 50mm F1.8 lens last year for Christmas. No computer magic causing the selective focus and background blur, that's how the pix really looks at F/1.8.



It does go up to F/22 so your pix don't all have to look like that if you don't want.

[Giselle]

Would this 50mm lens only be good for close-up shots and portraits? I want another lens still

[Catlady711]

Would this 50mm lens only be good for close-up shots and portraits? I want another lens still

Sorry I didn't see your question until now.

Don't know if I'm too late to answer the question, but I'll put it here in case someone else wonders the same thing and searches for it.

I find my 50mm 1.8 to be GREAT for portraits it's sharp crisp focus is wonderful. The experts/pro's don't agree as there is some distortion and they prefer to use nothing less than a 70mm up to even a 100 mm to keep the perspective of a person's size more natural. Although if you're not doing alot of shooting straight down on kids/pets or having someone holding something out towards the camera I don't know that most people would even see the distorton even if you pointed it out to them.

As far as for close up you can see how close I was to Bear. I'm pretty sure that was the closest I could get and still have the camera focus. I think the specs say 1 1/2 feet is the closest you can get to something and still focus on it.

To be fair though, on a DSLR a regular lens has a magnification factor of about 1.6 I think, so my 50mm film lens on a DSLR acts more like a 70mm anyways.