Recommendation of lenses to go with D610

spraynpray

Wow, you do like those 50's!

WestEndBoy

Wow, you do like those 50's!

Yup. I think that if I had a 24-70 2.8, I would have about one or two thousand shots on it. But then if I bought a 35mm 1.4, the 24-70 2.8 would start to look like the 28-200.

I am sure that I have deleted 2,000 to 3,000 photos, but I doubt that it would change the mix much.

churin

The following website shows how different pictures look depending on focal length of the lenses used. I want to ask about the second sets of pictures which are taken by 24mm and 160mm. My questions:
1) Is it correct to say that after the left picture is taken by 24mm the girl moved towards camera and the camera repositioned away from the girl before the right side picture is taken by 160mm?
2) The explanation about the differences between these two pictures is that the far side image in the one taken by 160mm is larger due to the "compression" effect by 160mm lens. Why the compression makes the image larger?
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/

WestEndBoy

Hi Churin:

I doubt the girl moved at all and for the sake of understanding the differences, let’s assume that she didn’t and that the camera moved backwards. The 24mm shot was probably taken less than a metre away while the 160mm shot was probably taken 5 or 6 metres away. The beam above her head was behind the photographer in the 24mm shot.

In answer to the second question, that is something that most photographers know intuitively without knowing the technical details of “perspective distortion”, which are not really needed to take good pictures. However, if you are motivated, knowing the technical details will improve your photography, so I will explain it in the terms that I think about. Other photographers may think about it differently, but that is OK and not wrong.

I think that the easiest way to understand perspective distortion is to consider a wide angle lens. When taking a head shot with a wide angle lens, the nose is inches away from the camera (with my 14mm, this is literally true, but let’s say 8 to 12 inches with the 24mm). The ears are almost double the distance from the camera. Therefore, the ears are only going to look half the size of the nose. Of course, the background at 100 times the distance is 100 times tinier.

It is this ratio that counts. Let’s call the ear to nose ratio 1:2 with the wide angle lens (disclaimer, I don’t have a camera or tape measure in front of me so I am not measuring anything, just estimating. However, if you ignore that my numbers would be a little different if I had these items at my disposal, the principal still applies).

On a really long telephoto, the ratio is effectively 1:1 (well OK, 1:01 or less if you want to be picky). The background objects become larger. The ears also become larger compared to the nose, but to a lesser degree than the fence and trees in the background, because the ratio is smaller for the nose and ears. The face will become larger because the back of the face is farther away than the front of the face.

Your question is now answered. If you want more understanding and theory, read on.

So if you want a natural looking face, why doesn’t every photographer use a 400mm lens? One answer is price. Another answer is unless you have a really big room or large outdoor space, there is not enough room. The other trick is more subtle and is about how our brains work.

The brain is the greatest and most powerful image processor in the known universe. The eyes send information to the brain just like a lens sends information to the sensor (let’s ignore the fact that there are two eyes and only one lens. While this is also a significant effect, an explanation of this is not needed for the point.). However, the brain processes the information in an interesting way by subconsciously modifying the perspective. You will notice that the 24mm image does not look “real”. However, it is “real”, your brain just processes it differently than a lens camera combination, which is actually “real”.

For reasons that I don’t understand and science likely does not understand, the brain changes the perspective so everything looks about 15 feet away. Good portrait photographers know this, even if they can’t put it in those terms.

For the following lenses at 15 feet away, you can roughly shoot the following and obtain the most “natural” look, even though a farther distance is more “real”:

-85mm - full body shot (85mm 1.4G).
-135mm - head and upper torso shot (135mm DC 2.0).
-200mm - head and shoulder shot (200mm 2.0 prime).
-400mm - head shot (400mm 2.8 prime).

The last two are $6,000 and $9,000 respectively. Ouch! Someday I will find an excuse, probably a safari, to buy the 400mm 2.8 prime).

Hope this helps,

Jeff

sevencrossing

.......For reasons that I don’t understand and science likely does not understand, .......

My late boss Richard Gregory gives an insight to the theory
http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Brain-Richard-L-Gregory/dp/0691048371
(I did some of the photographs for the first edition, as my first job, ~ 50 years ago )

churin

Hi jshiclele,
I understood your answer for 1) question: "Beam is behing the photographer" is it.
About my question 2), I thought the bush in the background of the photo by 160mm is larger than what human eye perceive. It appears that this is actually closer to normal looking size and the bush in the left photo taken by 24mm is smaller than actual size. The article explanation says " Notice the difference in what appears to be the size of the bushes. This is due to the compression that is created by the telephoto lens being shot at 160mm." The last sentence must be read as "This is due to the compression that is created by the 24mm lens"

WestEndBoy

I think you would need to be standing next to the photographer to truly appreciate the difference. You would probably agree that the bush is larger by a significant margin than what the eye perceives.

A 24mm, or wide angle lens, does not cause compression, but the opposite (the exact term escapes me at the moment).

If you are standing at one end of a long bridge but off to the side a bit and want the bridge to look longer, use a wide angle (the Golden Gate is often photographed this way.

If you want to make distant mountains behind your subject look like they are close to your subject, use a telephoto, the longer the better.

Not sure if I answered your question?

Jeff

churin

jeshickele, you sure answered all my questions.

I have decided on 24-120mm f4 to start with, and will try to use 50mm f1.4 which I already own but rarely used on D7000. This zoom lens is three times more expensive than 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 DX. This is on top of two times more expensive body. I am aware small incremental improvement very often costs disproportionately lot more.

Now where to get D610? I am considering newegg and Amazon which are my favorite places for computer parts(am computer enthusiast). But is there any other places I should look also?

WestEndBoy

I am in Canada. Where are you?

I am happy to hear that you have made a choice. I think that lens combination will give you a great opportunity to explore photography and decide how far you want to take it and in what direction.

churin

I am originally from Japan, lived in Otawa, Canada and now live in Georgia, U.S.A.

WestEndBoy

Nihonjin?? Honto?

Hajimemashita!! Nihonga sukidesu.

Nihon no doko kara kimashitaka?

Watashiwa takusan Nihongo wasurimachita. Gomen nasai.

If you live in the USA, then buy everything from B&H or Adorama. I have purchased most of my accessories and a my 50mm 1.2 and 135mm DC 2.0 from B&H. You won't find cheaper and you won't go wrong.

churin

Hai soudesu. Watashi wa Tokyo kara kimashita. Perhaps, you lived in Japan when you were a child and now you "Nihonngo wasuremashita".

It appears that Nikon products are being sold for practically the same price everywhere.

WestEndBoy

I spent about 9 months in Japan over 15 trips between 1996 and 2005, about half in Tokyo. I bought my first Nikon SLR, my F80, at Yodobashi in Akihabara. B&H in New York is the US version of Akihabara Yodobashi.

I am not sure about prices outside of North America, but I have noticed that B&H is very similar to Canada for prices. In fact, on some of the bread and butter Nikon lenses (fast Gs in prime and zoom), Canada is slightly cheaper.

I bought a couple of "International" or "Grey Market" lenses at B&H (50mm 1.2 and 135mm DC 2.0) mostly because few people in Canada carry them and it was easier. They were a lot cheaper, but there is no warranty and possible service issues. This is a gamble that I would think very carefully about. What I really like B&H for though, is their extensive selection of accessories. There are only two things that I have not been able to find at B&H, my UPstrap and RRS gear.

Good luck on your purchase and let us know how it turns out.

ChasCS

You got that correct Sir!! We Canadian customers, do seem to be getting some minor preferential pricing treatment.

Why is that, I ponder the reasoning, but I will never argue the fact.
Maybe USA PRICING IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER, as it's some form of re-payment for past indiscretions? :-( me no know...

But grateful.

PB_PM

The reason is simple, Nikon Canada does not force MSRP (MAP) prices on dealers.

spraynpray

Maybe USA PRICING IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER, as it's some form of re-payment for past indiscretions? :-( me no know...
.

That is not so silly. I made a deal like that in a past life with a distributor who needed help with a problem of his own making. He paid me back over two years with an uplifted price and so had his salesmen working hard to defend his own pricing to their customers.

ChasCS

Japan has had the **** knocked out of it so many times! Yeah, but they always return bigger and better for it.
But this last beating, from the earthquake and following tsunami,,, my Lord!!

I can't write what I'd like to say, not with my eyes filling with heavy tears. Too sad still.
It's tough being an island, with no place to put all that trash.
Even after all the time passed, there is still so much work to be done.
Breaks my heart, especially with having such strong connections through my music dealings, with the much loved
Yamaha Motif XF8. Not to mention Nikon. Prayers for Japan.
One good thing came out of the water, we got to see our first real ghosts. That was awesome, And several unusual UFO too.

churin

I have changed my mind: I am now looking D800 + 24-70mm f2.8 as a starter and later will add the rest of the holy trinity set or any lens as needed. I wonder why there is no such zoom lens as 24-120mm f2.8. My biggest concern is the weight. It appears that the above combo weighs 24.9 oz more than my D7000 kit.

jshickele,
Yodobashi Kyamera(is the complete name) has now become a big internet retailer selling all kinds of products.
When you get the camera at Yodobashi, did you get it at their duty free shop? Did it come with U.S. warranty?

WestEndBoy

It was my first SLR at the Akihabara location in 2000. I doubt it, though it would not matter. I am Canadian.

WestEndBoy

Also, if you are OK with the money, you are making a good upgrade and really setting youself up to determine your future needs. You will have a 24-70 2.8 zoom with a 50 1.4 (FX I assume?) Prime right in the middle. I would encourage you to use both lenses extensively. I know if it was me, the 24-70 would stay in my bag and I would zoom with my feet using a lens that is 4 times faster with similar image quality. But that is just me....

You will get to assess the tradeoff yourself. I would hold off on buying further equipment before you make that assessment.

churin

I knew you would call my attention to the 50mm f1.4 FX I have. I think I am fully aware of the tradeoff.
I have now ordered the D800 body but not yet the zoom lens. The review article at DXO indicates TAMRON's 24-70mm f2.8 is better than Nikon's counterpart. What I like about the TAMRON's lens is the Vibration Control. Is anyone using this lens?

WestEndBoy

I don't know anything about this lens, but I would think about other quality factors besides "tested image quality" such as image quaity characteristics that are hard to test (bokeh), warranty support, compataility with future cameras, build quality, filter size (77mm is best), weight, how the zoom and focus rings work (smoothness, drift etc.), resale value Etc.

Also, vibration control is useful, but the shorter the focal length, the less useful it is. I would consider that.

churin

I have been to one of my local camera shops and took a look at the D800 demo unit and the TAMRON lens happened to be on it. It is lighter and shorter than the Nikon version. I am aware that the value of the Vibration control for this lens is not as great as that for a longer focal length lens. The sample pictures look pretty good to me. The warranty is 6 years. On top of these, it being $900 cheaper is an added bonus. It may sound hard to believe.

Ironheart

Churin,

Given that all stores in the US have the same price, why not make your purchase at the local camera shop? You will not be sorry to start building a relationship there, and the big NYC retailers don't need your money. Sure, you can buy hard to find accessories from them, but your local shop will be an invaluable resource. Plus they usually rent stuff too...

churin

The problem is no camera store in my area has D800 in stock. Unlike D800 which being priced the same anywhere, I found one of the internet retailers is selling the TAMRON lens $300 cheaper.