I want to start photograph newborns. But know I am pretty comfused which lens would be good on my Nikon D7200 crop camera.? Everywhere i look for information all suggestions are for full frame camera. At start I wanted 24-70mm lens, bur now I dont know.  So maybe you can help me decide. Which lens could give me sharp pictures and beautiful bokeh?  :)
122507
I am an amateur photographer and I have a newborn session coming up for a family friend.   My current gear is:   Canon T5i (crop sensor) Canon 18-55 IS STM Kit lens 85mm f/1.8 lens   I plan on buying a reflector for the shoot and will be using natural light as my light source.  So my question is: is this enough gear to get some nice photos? Should I get another prime lens besides the 85mm? I don't really use the kit lens.  I also have another 8 month old baby shoot coming up and an informal wedding shoot coming up so it would be nice to use the lenses in all situations. I don't need a telephoto at the moment and will probably not use one any time soon.
32930
I have found that my Nikon 60mm Micro AF-D changes aperture from 2.8 to 3.2 when used with a D90. I have tried both A and M mode. Is it by design? Why?  I intend to buy  and it will lock the maximum aperture at 2.0 (my guess) instead 2.8. So should I buy it or not, or would it be better to buy the newer 50mm 1.4 AF-S version?
113074
I have a D700 which I'm not planning to replace at this point in Nikon's product cycle.   I'll porbably buy the D800's successor.   Not because I don't like the D800 (especially its usability improvements around focus mode switching and Live View, which don't seem to have attracted much attention) but because I can't justify the cost when there are too few things the D800 does that the D700 doesn't.  Anyway, although I'm keeping the D700 for now, I'm planning to buy a wide-angle prime so that I end up with this in my bag:  D700, SB-800, 105mm micro, 50mm, wide-angle.  I need to choose a wide-angle lens.   The 14-24 is a great lens, but too big for me to routinely carry it.   So I'm going to buy a wide-angle prime.   However, I don't want to buy a prime now that turns out to be disappointing on the replacement body I eventually buy.  As for focal length, the 35mm is a lens I could like but it's too close to the 50mm for me to seriously consider buying it.   Hence I'm looking at the 20mm - 28mm focal length range.   Which Nikon primes have sufficient micro-contrast to work well with bodies with a finer pixel pitch at full frame (I'm going to assume for the sake of the discussion that that is what the D800 successor will be like: FX, high resolution)?  I'm going to assume that the 24mm f/1.4 is going to be among the suggestions, and in fact Nikon points it out in the technical guide for the D800 as being suitable for use with the D800E.   It's heavy and expensive so I worry that in practice I'd leave it behind with the 14-24.   So I'm interested in my other likely options.     Budget is important for recommending the right choice.   But I'm pretty flexible for a reason: new lenses will be launched between now and the launch of the D800's successor.  So maybe the right approach is to buy something less expensive now and upgrade later to some not-yet-existing lens. The principle I'm going to operate on is that I'm OK with buying a lens now, that's actually not suitable for the D800's successor at up to €400.   I'd just sell if that seems like the right thing to do, and not worry about losing some of its value on the re-sale.   On the other hand, if I'm going to spend more than €500 I don't want to plan to replace the lens.  My planned uses are principally travel photography, interior shots, architecture, some environmental portraits.  What do you say?
109559
Two years ago I bought my first DSLR. Since then I have bought and inherited some lenses. What should I buy next, a better body or more lenses? I enjoy photography but I do it fewer than I'd like (not enough time). I am not planning on selling photos nor services, just doin' it for fun.  This is all my equipment:   Nikon D60 Kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR      Filters: Circular Polarizer and ND-400 Very crappy tripod, before any body or lens I will buy a better tripod.   As you may have noticed I've inherited some pretty old lenses from my father (also a great old film camera, but I don't use it). I use them on full manual mode as  implies on a similar case.  So my question is, should I invest in a new body or still add some more lenses? Which body? Does it make sense for me to go for a full-frame body (I guess that no)? Which lenses would you recommend to add to my equipment? and the more important question: Should I buy first a new body or a new lens?
32420
What focal length or range of focal lengths are usually used for portraits?   What is used by professionals? Why would one select a certain focal length? What are the advantages and disadvantages of different choices, and are there certain situations where an unusual choice might be better?
77961
I am getting a deal on a Canon T3 cam with 18-55mm kit lens and I have choice of one extra lens: 75-300mm f4-5.6 and 55-250mm f4-5.6. I generally like to shoot street, abstract and nature photos and I'm not sure which lens is going to be more suitable to my needs. Are their pros and cons to either lenses given my preferred subjects?
88590
I was reading about crop factor from various places on the internet, and the general idea that kept building in my mind was that full-frame cameras are good for wide-angle shots but not that good for tele-photo. In :     [...] a 200 mm lens on a camera with a crop   factor of 1.5 has the same angle of   view as a 300 mm lens on a full-frame   camera. The extra "reach", for a given   number of pixels, can be helpful in   specific areas of photography such as   wildlife or sports.   It makes sense, but how high would the level of detail be on a full-frame with 300mm compared to the other example?
17
So I'm about to buy my first DSLR (definitely a Canon, probably the 700D) and my original plan was to buy the one with the included 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.  At the same time I was thinking about picking up the 50mm f/1.8 on account of the fact that it's cheap and I love taking photos of people with a shallow depth of field.   A couple of friends who are big into photography both suggested that the kit lenses aren't that good and produce blurry, distorted and drab imagery. They also both suggested that I should use the money saved by just getting the body to offset the cost of a decent prime lens.  At this point their views differed:   One suggested that I should get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. This works out at only £12 more expensive than the kit. They said it takes much better photos than the 50m f/1.8 for only a small amount more and it's very light. Another suggested that I go directly to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 as it's a lens that I'll never ever need to replace. This works out at £150 more expensive than the kit, although I can take (very small) comfort in the fact that I'm saving £80 by not buying the f/1.8 as a stepping stone to the f/1.4.   Both also suggested that once I'd had some lessons, learnt how to use the camera and absolutely must have a zoom lens, then I save up and look to buy something decent at that point in time, rather than use the kit lens.  Should I drop the kit lens and pick up a decent prime? Will I be missing out on some types of photography without the kit lens? Or should I start off with the kit and nifty-fifty and upgrade each component over time?
116808
Hello recently I went to best buy and played with a Nikon B500, it was great. I was able to focus on the smallest things, close or far, zoomed all the way in and all the way out. So I went on the internet and found out that the B700 shoots in raw so I got it instead thinking it was better. Only I cant get it to focus on anything close up, weather in macro or not after like 25% zoom it no longer focuses on anything no matter what settings I put it on leaving me to think that I should have gotten the cheaper B500. It may not shoot in raw but at least it would be usable. I am fairly new to photography I had a friend with much more experience come over and try to figure it out. He told me that my camera has a range that it is able to focus on. Only the cheaper B500 focused on things way more zoomed in and with the camera much closer to the object so it doesn't make much since to me. So my question is why wont my camera focus on macro shots (weather in macro or not)?
46473
I have a Canon 550D which I've been using for around a year now. I really love it and have learned a great deal with this and the 18 - 135mm kit lens. But now with experience I feel the need to get some better glass. I won't be buying a new body any time soon because I figure investing in some good glass is more important.   As I have looked around, I see quite a few good used L lenses I can get in ebay for good bargain prices. But I know that the EF lenses don't have the same focal length in the cropped sensors. Is it a wise decision to buy these EF lenses or buy the cropped sensor alternatives?  I have the following lenses in mind that I am looking to buy down the line from the canon range over the next several months.  16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L.  Are these apt choices for cropped sensors? I know most pros with FFs use these but I am a bit skeptic that they will serve the same purpose for me. If so what are the alternatives for this that have almost as good image quality?
62374
Being a beginner, I can't see why I must choose an 80-200 over an 18-200. Are there scenarios where an 80-200 would be preferable over an 18-200?  I will be buying a D7000 soon and am looking at these:       but similar considerations would apply to other brands as well.
70851
I'm considering purchasing a DSLR for the first time here in the next couple of months. The two "big boys" seem to be Canon and Nikon. I've looked at both companies, and I can't really see significant differences between the two.  Are there any?  (Please don't go into a flame war here -- I'm looking for factual differences between the cameras, not "I enjoy X because of Y...")    Also see   for another important part of the story.
104032
I'm a beginner at photography and own a Canon 20D with two lens; a 50mm prime and a 17mm-85mm zoom.  I've purchases all my filters at 67mm to fit my zoom lens and use a  to use them with my prime lens.  I'm looking at buying a . My question is, will the same principal work? Can I buy a 67mm wide angle lens and use it on my 52mm prime without any trouble.  One of the reasons for the purchase of a wide angle is my cropped sensor makes the 50mm prime rather close - I'm hoping the wide angle will make it easier to capture more.  Many thanks for any help in advance. Pete
56510
I've been looking to upgrade the camera I use at my job. Thinking of getting the Sony a6000. We list things on ebay to sell, and quite frankly I just don't like the lightbox, nor the camera we currently have.  We're using a Nikon D3100, and I forgot the name of the Macro Lens.  Basically, I want to have my own personal camera, that's better than the D3100, but one I can use at the job as well for when we photograph our jewelry.  I do mainly macro photography in the lightbox, and I'm working on my own setup with better lighting and other things to improve our photos. I just ordered an external flash for the D3100 so I can over expose the background to get a nice white one with the pics when I finish my own setup as well, but I digress lol.  I need suggestions for what I should look for in a good macro lens to use when I photograph jewelry. I mainly work with rings, but I also do pictures of pendants/charms, necklaces, bracelets, watches, and other related items too.  Right now I'm considering the SEL30M35. But I haven't bought anything yet (Including the new camera)  To get a better idea of the type of photos that I'm producing with the Nikon, you can check these out: (I don't have the stats for the Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, etc)       You can see that when you're 100% zoomed in, things aren't that detailed. Don't get me wrong I've had some nice shots. But that ugly grey background usually says otherwise. I use different backdrops in the cases when the background looks too ugly. I take all my pics handheld, Manual Mode, the focusing is Auto Manual (focuses when I hold the shutter release halfway) and when I'm at the lightbox the rings are only about 5 - 8 inches away, unless I bring them closer to get detailed diamond shots. (Which, I might add, aren't too good.)  I want to get some photos as close to these as possible:       I'm still an amateur, and I'm still learning, but I really want to take better photos. I'd love for them to be sharp and really detailed on most parts of the subject. That and seeing the photos on an LCD screen with the a6000 before actually snapping them to have a look would save me a lot of time.  Merging some of the macro shots to get everything in focus (I think its called focus stacking), and to use focus peaking on the new camera would probably help me a lot more as well. That and a lot better lighting than the lightbox gives off.  Heck, maybe these photos are actually good and I'm just too picky lol, idk.  Anyway, what do you guys think? Would the SEL30M35 macro lens be a good lens for my needs with the jewelry photography I'm trying to do? I understand some lenses aren't compatible with the auto focus or something like that on the a6000 (maybe the E-mount?). How can I be sure they're compatible? Or if I need an adapter, can you suggest one as well?
20355
My girlfriend owns a D5100 and I own a D7000 for which we both share lenses (or try to when appropriate). I own the 18-55 kit lens, a Nikkor 50mm 1.8g (I may consider buying the inexpensive 50mm 1.8d so that we can both have the 50mm at all times) and a cheap Sigma 70-300 4.5-5.6.  As of right now, I do 65% of my shots using the 50mm, including, most of the time, landscape photography. I just adjust the composition by adjusting my position and only use the kit lens when that's not an option. For some time I've been thinking about acquiring a wide angle lens, but after checking up the prices and different models I couldn't make up my mind.  What is it that you look for in a wide angle lens?  To make it easier to explain where my doubts lay, let's say the Nikkor 24mm 2.8D which sells on amazon for 360 pounds / $450.   Do I really need a fast lens for landscape? I mean, 90% of my shooting with a wide lens is going to be architecture or landscape so why would I need a fast lens? Most of my photography (which tends to be street photography and portraits) is taken with the 50mm or the telephoto (which I'm seriously considering upgrading to something not crappy)... are there other usages for wide angle (other than landscape and architecture) that I'm missing? (I mean things you'll do often, not things that you may do but you never end up really doing). How is it different from the kit lens? I can deduce build quality of the kit lens is not going to be great, but it's still a 18mm f3.5 in the wide side, so wider and reasonably fast... is it really worth it to get the Nikkor 24mm? Why?
80967
In optimal world I would buy a lens that is good in every way. But I'm on a budget and have to find a balance in quality and price. I'm looking for a lens for star photography, so in my case it will be a wide angle lens with good characteristics for capturing points of light in a dark sky. What would those characteristics be?  So far I've learned about , which seems like a thing to note when comparing different lenses for star photography. It would be quite disappointing if stars turned into long teardrops on the edges of a photograph even when every precaution was taken to make all stars sharp round points of light.  Vignetting would be an example of lens characteristic not so important in this use.  Many characteristics of a lens turn better when aperture is slightly stopped down, but I suppose I'd be wanting to use a lens with wide open aperture when trying to capture the stars in a dark night sky.  I'm not asking for lens recommendations. But, as an example of what kind of lenses I've been looking at, I name  manual focus lens. Its price level is $350'ish in Amazon and seems to run with name Rokinon too. It seems to be reasonably sharp even when wide open - my camera is an APS-C sensor camera.
88301
I've been testing out a Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 against a Nikon 55-300mm F4.5-5.6   I took two pictures of a door knob from an equal distance of about 3 meters away with the same Nikon d7100 DX camera but each with the different lenses both set to the same focal length of 200mm.   To my surprise, the image taken with the 55-300mm lens gave a considerably tighter crop than the one taken with the 18-200.   Is this normal, and if so how is this possible? I was under the impression that the field of view should be the same if both lenses are set to the same focal length. I'm asking this question because I bought the 18-200mm lens second hand and I'm worried there is something wrong with it even though it does appear to be fine.   Here are the example photos. Note the meta data on the images do confirm both were taken at 200mm. I was not using a tripod, so there was probably a slight discrepancy, but I did make sure to sit in the exact same position and leaning back against a wall in the same spot to take the photos. The difference in crop was immediately apparent