View Full Version : Lens advice for low light conditions.
I'm going to my Father's 65th birthday on Saturday, and I'm planning to take some shots at the party. I hoping to avoid using flash as I've never been very happy with the results I've got, so I was thinking about buying a prime lens with a low f number. My hope is that with a high ISO setting and a wide open aperture I can take reasonable shots in a function room at night.
Nikon D200
18-200 VR (f3.5-5.6)
50mm f1.8
I also have a Nikon SB-600 Speedlight, but as I mentioned, I've never managed to get great results with it.
The 50mm won't be great for indoors work because on my D200 it has a 75mm focal length, so I would be stood miles away from those I was trying to take shots of, so the two lens I'm looking at are;
Nikon 28mm f2.8
Nikon 35mm f2
These lens work out at 42mm and 53mm on my body, but in terms of f numbers it's getting close to the f3.5 that my 18-200 can manage). I've also just noticed there is a Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX lens that would give me an actual 35mm focal length, which seems like a much better option, but given that my plan is to replace my D200 with a D700 in the next year the DX lens will be redundant.
So, do I splash out on a DX lens, invest a 'proper' lens or learn how to use the Speedlight before Friday?
DeadYankee
31-03-2009, 12:07
Depends on the lighting when you are actually there - you might even struggle with a 1.4 lens so your only realistic option is to go with the speedlight as your fallback option so you'll need to practice with it. I assume you can bounce it off the ceiling?
Then maybe you could rent a fast zoom or prime for the weekend to complement it
I've also just noticed there is a Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX lens that would give me an actual 35mm focal length.
You still have to apply the 1.5 calculation to the DX lens.
Dave
You still have to apply the 1.5 calculation to the DX lens.
Well, slightly annoyingly for me, you're right.
In fact I'm slightly confused now. I thought that DX lenses cover the smaller APS sized DX sensor, and that FX lenses are designed to cover a 35mm film frame or FX sensor. Put an FX lens on a camera with a DX sensor and you get the x1.5 focal length increase.
So when I use my 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX NIKKOR (to give it it's full name) with my DX sensor equipped D200, the DX reference in the name means I get an 18-200mm zoom lens.
However if I use the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G (again, to give it it's full name) I get the same 53mm focal length when used with the D200 the I would get had a used a 35mm f/2D AF NIKKOR, despite the fact the f/1.8 lens has DX right there in the name.
It seems to me that this isn't the clearest use of the DX label.
It doubly annoying as following a trip out at lunchtime I now have a brand new AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G sat on my desk.
At the end of the day it's not the end of the world because it will still do what I need it to do, but I have a 50mm lens and not the 35mm lens that the DX label led me to believe.
still average joe
31-03-2009, 16:56
My understanding is that the differance between a dx and a non dx lens is that the dx can be made smaller and cheaper as they do not need to cover tha same area as a 35mm camera. But your right, its confusing. We are just lucky that is such an easy calculation. Imagine it was 1.73 crop factor.
Yep, I believe the DX means that the glass is just optimised to cover the DX sensor area. The focal length of the lens itself does not change...The only thing that changes is the field of view on a DX camera...
Hmmm, I think I am making this sound even more confusing. :doh:
Sprout Crumble
31-03-2009, 18:40
Sigma do a cheapish 28/1.8 that works on DX and FX as well as a 20/1.8.
Learn to use your flash - particularly bouncing it as DY mentioned.
If you're getting harsh results from it, you might want to also look at a diffuser.
My understanding is that the differance between a dx and a non dx lens is that the dx can be made smaller and cheaper as they do not need to cover tha same area as a 35mm camera. But your right, its confusing. We are just lucky that is such an easy calculation. Imagine it was 1.73 crop factor.
So does that mean that the focal length refers to the lens when used on an FX sensor or 35mm film frame, but because it doesn't cover an FX sensor it can't be used with FX format cameras? So that means it focal length is calculated for cameras it can't be used on? Hmmm.... Either I don't understand something or it seems like a poor way of referring to a camera.
Anyway, having got home and taken some very simple test shots, it seems that the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens has the same coverage/framing as my 18-200 DX Zoom lens zoomed to 35mm, which in turn has the same coverage at 50mm as my 50mm f/1.8 Full frame prime has.
Is it possible that my understanding of DX is completely wrong, and that my beloved 18-200mm lens is in fact a 27-300mm lens when used on my camera? Because right now that how it appears to me. The foundation on which my world is based is shaking!
This must what it feels like to loose you faith in a higher power. DAMM YOU DARWIN AND NIKON!
DeadYankee
31-03-2009, 19:38
a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, end of story. If you use it on a crop sensor then multiply it by the crop.
Learn to use your flash - particularly bouncing it as DY mentioned.
If you're getting harsh results from it, you might want to also look at a diffuser.
The flash was a gift from a friend (and came with a diffuser that clips over the head) and it can be adjusted to bounce, however my only real experience with flash was many years ago with my old Olympus OM10 SLR and an Olympus T20 Flash, and I never got on with it which has sort coloured my opinion of flash ever since.
Any suggestions on a good source of info on how to use a modern flash setup?
still average joe
31-03-2009, 20:11
So does that mean that the focal length refers to the lens when used on an FX sensor or 35mm film frame, but because it doesn't cover an FX sensor it can't be used with FX format cameras? So that means it focal length is calculated for cameras it can't be used on? Hmmm.... Either I don't understand something or it seems like a poor way of referring to a camera.
Anyway, having got home and taken some very simple test shots, it seems that the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens has the same coverage/framing as my 18-200 DX Zoom lens zoomed to 35mm, which in turn has the same coverage at 50mm as my 50mm f/1.8 Full frame prime has.
Is it possible that my understanding of DX is completely wrong, and that my beloved 18-200mm lens is in fact a 27-300mm lens when used on my camera? Because right now that how it appears to me. The foundation on which my world is based is shaking!
This must what it feels like to loose you faith in a higher power. DAMM YOU DARWIN AND NIKON!
On your body your 18-200 acts like a 27-300mm lens. The 35mm you bought will give exacly the same field of view as your 18-200 does at 35mm. Any lens at 35mm will be the same on you body wheather its DX or whatever. For any lens you use on your body you need to multiply it 1.5 to get its effective length. The DX bit has nothing to do with the lenses length.
The benefit of the 35mm over your zoom is that its faster.
The flash was a gift from a friend (and came with a diffuser that clips over the head) and it can be adjusted to bounce, however my only real experience with flash was many years ago with my old Olympus OM10 SLR and an Olympus T20 Flash, and I never got on with it which has sort coloured my opinion of flash ever since.
Any suggestions on a good source of info on how to use a modern flash setup?
Probably the best resource out there is here: http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html
A digital camera is perfect for learning flash though - it's a nightmare with film because you can't see what you've cocked up! Read the above and have an (extensive) play with your setup. Have fresh batteries ready because you'll plow through them initially.
Bouncing the light is key if you want to avoid nasty harsh shadows in portrait work with only one flash.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.