Reddit mentions: The best camera lenses

We found 6,102 Reddit comments discussing the best camera lenses. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 1,118 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

12. Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens

Maximum aperture: f/4.0-f/5.6Optics: 12 elements in 10 groups, UD glass elementCanon EF-S Mount (not compatible with full sensor DSLRs)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens
Height2.7559 Inches
Length4.25196 Inches
Number of items1
SizeOne Size
Weight0.8598028218 Pounds
Width2.7559 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

🎓 Reddit experts on camera lenses

The comments and opinions expressed on this page are written exclusively by redditors. To provide you with the most relevant data, we sourced opinions from the most knowledgeable Reddit users based the total number of upvotes and downvotes received across comments on subreddits where camera lenses are discussed. For your reference and for the sake of transparency, here are the specialists whose opinions mattered the most in our ranking.
Total score: 1,367
Number of comments: 740
Relevant subreddits: 8
Total score: 388
Number of comments: 226
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 235
Number of comments: 141
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 196
Number of comments: 81
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 148
Number of comments: 45
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 91
Number of comments: 58
Relevant subreddits: 3
Total score: 73
Number of comments: 56
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 68
Number of comments: 28
Relevant subreddits: 4
Total score: 45
Number of comments: 25
Relevant subreddits: 5
Total score: 38
Number of comments: 24
Relevant subreddits: 3
📹 Video recap
If you prefer video reviews, we made a video where we go through the best camera lenses according to redditors. For more video reviews about products mentioned on Reddit, subscribe to our YouTube channel.

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Top Reddit comments about Camera Lenses:

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/eskachig · 1 pointr/Cameras

They're both pretty great cameras. I am someone who is in a fuji camp that's thinking about moving over to Sony, but that doesn't mean that I would discourage you from taking a serious look at fuji. They're great cameras with fantastic ergonomics and form factors. In many ways they seem to be better sorted than the Sonys - and firmware support from Fuji is nothing short of phenomenal. My own fuji is far more capable now than it was when it was originally released in 2012 (I haven't owned it that long because I always buy used, but the firmware improvements really make older fujis a bargain, and should be a plus for any potential new buyer too). The lens lineup is great, if pricey, and performance is perfectly acceptable - you can take great photos on a fuji. The ergonomics are far superior to Sonys, as far as I understand - everyone bitches about Sony's menu systems.

But as someone who uses a lot of adapted vintage lenses, that full frame sensor (allows use of "dumb" cheap adapters), and in-body image stabilization (just a nice luxury altogether) are pretty amazing. Fuji raw support isn't all that great too, it feels like I'm always struggling in Lightroom a bit - and don't feel like jumping over to Capture One, etc.

Honestly, if I were to dip my feet into photography, and wanted something rugged with a good battery life, I'd get an older prosumer DSLR from Canon or Nikon. That's how I started out, and have zero regrets. They're fucking fantastically sorted, and imo, are better to learn on than mirrorless or entry level DSLRs - and you can get started for very cheap. Then a ways down the road, you'll have a better idea of what you want out of a camera.

My dirt cheap starting kit suggestion - get a used Canon 40D. It was my first real camera, and it's still pretty great. It's bottomed out in price and can be had for less than $150. Or its successors - 50D is like $180, 7D is in the $300s, etc. It's fantastically made, very rugged (magnesium body), weather sealed, can take a thousand shots on a single battery charge (no joke) - awesome for hiking, etc - especially as its big weakness compared to modern cameras is low light performance. Get the pancake lens for it. You now have a great walkaround/hiking/street photography/shooting people indoors kit for under $300. Also, in a year, that A7ii will be a great deal, because the iii is coming out soon.

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/MegsHusband16 · 1 pointr/Cameras

I fell in love with photography the exact same way! Started with my first iPhone which was a 5s and I was in love hah! Eventually decided to buy a canon rebel T3i. A few photographer friends of mine all suggested this camera and it was a GOOD buy! I had it for at least a year before I upgraded to a canon 7D. To this day I still use the T3i alongside my 7D.
Though the T3i is a discontinued camera you can sill buy it on amazon or eBay for pretty cheap along with a kit lens that will be enough to get you started.

I STRONGLY recommend buying something used! Especially for your first camera. Cameras and lenses hold their value and quality for YEARS so there is usually no worry when buying a body used in good quality. Both my T3i and 7D, along with almost all my lenses including my L series lens I got all used! No problems whatsoever.
This is a Canon Rebel T5i it’s an upgraded version from the T3i, which is discontinued and pretty old at this point. The T5i will be a GREAT starter camera! It’s a little out of your budget brand new but scroll down and click USED to see many other used options all within your budget. Select one that’s “very good” or “like new” and you’ll have no problem! Along with the 18-55mm kit lens that comes with you’ll want to purchase one more lens.. the Canon 50mm f1.8 aka ‘nifty fifty’. This is the suggested first lens purchase by thousands. Literally ask a thousand photographers what’s the first lens you should buy and that’s what they’ll tell you the nifty fifty! And it’s only $125 brand new! (The only lens I’ve bought new), though you can get it cheaper for used.

This is a phenomenal professional grade starter DSLR that will last you years! And I promise oh won’t be disappointed with it.

Finally you’ll want to invest in an Adobe Lightroom subscription. For $10/Mo you can get both Lightroom and Photoshop. Lightroom will be your hub for organizing photos as well as editing them. The program is super powerful and can be a bit tedious to learn, but follow some YouTube videos and tutorials like some from Anthony Morganti and you will learn quick! I’ve watched almost all of his videos (there’s hundreds) and every video I learn something new!

Best of luck to you and I’m excited for you to get started in such a great hobby!

edit: oh BTW! Once you get a DSLR you will have total control over all settings in your camera, which you probably didn’t have before on your phone. So the first step with a DSLR is learning how Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO interact with each other. This is how you can get those awesome short depth of field shots you mentioned with the background blurry and bokeh’d. this is a great video to help understand the “focus triangle” and learn how those 3 settings interact with each other! That’s also another great tutorial YouTube channel so I suggest subscribing to them and watching some other of their videos as well.

another edit: btw the 750D you mentioned is a newer version of the T5i. 750D is called the T6i in America, also another great option! I didn’t suggest it because it’s a bit out of tour budget but again I’m sure you can find it used in your budget! If the T6i fits your budget then definitely opt for that option as it’s newer and has a few more features upgraded features, but the T5i is great as well!

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/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/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/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/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/DontNoodles · 4 pointsr/india

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/SimplyZ · 1 pointr/pics

This stuff is pretty nice, but she is limited by the equipment. Get her a decent dslr body, but invest in a good lens. My girlfriend started shooting with phones and point and shoots. We saved up and bought a Canon T2i at a great price. We were then able to save up and add to our lens collection. Here is a very good lens for a great price. Remember though it's not the camera that makes the photo, but the director who shoots it. With these cameras you have so much more potential, but you have to set it up. It's a great learning experience. It's like playing games on a pc. An entry level computer will still let you play great games, but a gaming computer will let you play great games at a much higher quality. You just have to know how to build it and set it up. Best of luck to you and your mom.

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/[deleted] · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Hardmode: using only the items that were already on my list. Here we go.

[1. wine] ( "In wine there's truth, but in silence there's surrender." Wine is essentially veritaserum, it reveals an unfiltered truth. Much like a photographer's lens, which can only capture the truth laid out before it, with no artist's interpretation to misconstrue the meaning. It is pure, unadulterated reality, straight from the lens, before any alteration.

[2. broomstick] ( This kanji set is similar in form and function to a broomstick used in the wizarding world. While visually similar, the main purpose of a broomstick in that world is for flight, for transportation. To perform sumi drawing is to get lost in yourself, to interpret your subconscious thoughts upon the paper, to allow the brush to move of its own volition, while you simply follow its movements. A broomstick you sit upon, and steer it with your weight, guiding it to your destination, exactly like this paint brush. You use yourself to guide it, but it's truly the one doing the work.

[3. hat] ( So, in Jericho, a nuclear blast detonates and they have to implement the proper procedures for such an event, which include crouching under something and COVERING THEIR HEADS. LIKE A HAT DOES.

[4. book] ( I'm going to make an obvious connection with this one, Avatar Book 3. It literally says book in the title, how relevant is that?!

[5. trunk] ( A trunk is used for storage, much like a BOX. Much like the Lord of the Rings BOXset. Yeah, yeah? GET IT? Also, remember that scene in the Fellowship of the ring where Frodo hides the Ring after Gandalf gave it to him? HE HID IT IN A TRUNK. RELEVANT.

[6. cape] ( A cape encapsulates you, much like a cloak, and protects you from the elements depending on its thickness and function. For all intents and purposes, I'm going to say it protects you from certain weathers. Now, a cape is like hope. Hope is something light, that also protects you from all of life's misfortune. As long as you have hope, you are protected. Wear your hope like a cape.

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/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/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/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/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/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/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/NHarvey3DK · 3 pointsr/Panasonic_G80_G85

I've traveled to quite a few places with my kit lens. It's pretty damn good.

You still have time to fill out the rest of your stuff, if needed:


Singh-Ray Filters makes a "ColorCombo LB" filter. Works like wearing a pair of polarized GOOD quality sunglasses outdoors. I never took it off. Excellent quality and helped when the sky was overexposed and when I generally wanted to get a more intense color.


Your kit lens will be more than fine for anything during the day. But at night is different. The kit is meh at night. You definitely want something to capture night time. Maybe some star time lapses? Those are always cool.

Leica 15mm F1.7 My wallet hurt when I bought this, but to be honest, it's on my camera more than it's not. It makes the night look amazing. The quality is awesome too.

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 - compared to the "nifty fifty" on a full frame (25mm*2=50mm). This is our "go-to" as a second lens (for day and/or night), 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. Too much for me, but it's still worth mentioning.

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).


If you want a better microphone get the Videomic Pro+. The difference between this and the others are that the mic turns on/off automatically when the camera turns on/off and it has a USB rechargeable battery.


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

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.

External Drive:

You WILL run out of space on your laptop. You can either purchase 3-4 SD cards, or you can get an external HDD. Each has it's pros and cons.

Battery Pack / cables:

Whether it's your phone / headphones / batteries / tablet / whatever, I suggest the Anker PowerCore. These things are beasts. One of these made sure I was able to fly from here to Australia without worrying about battery levels.

You'll also want to carry extra wires. Whether MicroUSB, USB-C, or Lightening, I would never use anything else but Anker PowerLine

International Charger:
I used the BESTEK Travel Adapter and loved it. Plenty of ports to charge stuff on. It has a small fan (to keep it cool) that some people say bothers them, but I'm the lightest sleeper and it didn't bother me. Barely heard it.

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/Sluisifer · 2 pointsr/Cameras

Get an intro-level DSLR from Nikon (D3200) or Canon (T3) and you'll be fine. The 18-55mm kit lenses are good; you can spend more money to get a longer zoom range, but 1) most people don't need it all and 2) they're bigger and heavier. The 18-55 is perfect for general use. Seriously, these intro cameras are fantastic and you'll love them for family shooting.

I'd also recommend you get one prime (fixed focal length, i.e. not a zoom) lens for low light. For Nikon, get the 35mm f/1.8, or Canon 35mm f/2. These are small, light lenses with a focal length that's perfect for general use. Best of all, they have much faster maximum apertures (they let more light in) for use in low-light conditions. You'll really appreciate this for indoor shooting. In fact, you could use these and completely forgo the kit zoom lens if you like, though most people like the zoom.

Most importantly, you'll need to know a little about how to use them. Just google "how to use dslr" and you'll see loads of articles on that. Modern cameras are great for 'set it and forget it' exposure, so you really don't even need to know how shutter speed, aperture, and ISO work (though it really helps if you do for some shooting). Just set the camera to "P" and go to town. It's probably more important to learn how to use the autofocus system. Namely, learn how to half-depress the shutter so the camera focuses, and then fully depress it to take the shot. If you do this, there will be no 'shutter lag' and you'll have great control over your shots. Most people know this from using a point-and-shoot, but not everyone.

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/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/n0gtree · 1 pointr/Cameras

There are a couple of differences. The Sony A5000 is a mirrorless camera whereas the Canon 100D is a DSLR. Therefore the Canon 100D will have a larger form factor. Here's a nice resource for comparison.

In terms of differences between a mirrorless and DSLR, without getting technical, the main one is that generally you are paying a premium for a smaller form factor. DSLRs are generally more rugged, do the same job as a mirrorless, but they are larger and so are their lenses.

Also, the 100D is actually slightly smaller than other DSLRs. A 1200D is slightly larger, has the same features, and is slightly newer (2014 vs 2013) and also a bit cheaper as it's larger. My recommendation for you at your budget of ~$450 is to go the used/refurb route.

For the camera I'd get the Canon 1200D - about $250 used, you can probably find it cheaper in the Black Friday sales. For the lens I might go for something general purpose like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The reason for choosing the Tamron is that it is a zoom lense - covers multiple focal lengths. At the wide end, it's the equivalent of 27mm or 66° horizontal viewing angle. This is pretty standard for the wide end of a zoom lense and will be ok for taking landscapes. If you want a better wide angle lense, consider the 10-18mm Canon f4.5 lense. This lense is slower a f4.5 (i.e. has a smaller aperture - lets in less light), however it has a horizontal viewing angle of 95° - a lot better than 66° before. Take into consideration though that while the Tamorn won't be as wide angled, it will be capable of letting in more light (better at taking the northern lights/night time photography), and will be better at taking portrait photos (you want a larger aperture to get a better blurred background.) Ideally you would get a combination of lenses - such as the Canon 10-18mm and a dedicated portrait lense for awesome background blurs - however this would fall out of your budget. Good luck on finding a camera!

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/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/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/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/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/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/dufflecoat · 1 pointr/Cameras

The problem with that bundle you've linked to is that there' a lot of junk included. The 'lenses' it comes with are actually more like filters you screw onto the front of the 18-55mm lens that the camera comes with. These kinds of add-ons don't provide good quality at all. And the flash and tripod are also not worth speaking of...

Here's an equivalent bundle for the D3300:

So all that stuff for $75 on top of the D3300 and 18-55mm lens might not be the worst deal in the world (you need memory cards and a bag obviously) but I'd just skip it myself.

> I'm shopping around for a wide angle that won't force me to sell my first born

Firstly, the 18-55mm 'kit' lens goes pretty wide and is quite flexible for your family snaps too:

Landscapes don't have to be shot with 'ultrawide' lenses but you will need to spend a bit of cash to get such a lens if you want one. This is why I say just get your technique sorted out with the kit lens before spending more. A lot of people also 'stitch' images together (in Photoshop) to recreate a wide-angle effect.

An advantage of Canon is that they offer a great value ultrawide lens for under $300: - you could put than on a T6i/T5i/T4i/T3i etc. and that'd be pretty cool.

But the Nikon does have a superior sensor overall, and the best value ultrawide would be something like this from Sigma: - so that's about $850 for the camera and two lenses

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/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/fatninjamke · 1 pointr/photography

So I have a Canon T3i and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the near future, I will be purchasing a new lens. I'm still a newbie, so I don't really have a specific style and I just shoot what's in front of me. I've been doing predominantly street photography and auto photography, but i'm also looking to branch out. It's come to my attention that I should have a wide angle lens in my arsenal as I was begging for a wider perspective when I went to my first auto show a couple weeks ago. It made framing weird, and I had to move back which was quite inconvenient in a packed show like that. I also love landscapes and views so I want something wide to capture those as well.
Here are some of the choices I'm considering.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens

Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens

There are also a couple lenses that I have stumbled upon that are not as wide, but have a longer focal length which may double as more than just a wide-angle.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens (really have my eye on this one!)

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens

This is all a bit confusing for a noob like me, so any help is appreciated it. If you feel like there is a better option, please do recommend it to me! And also, i'm on a working-class student budget.

One last question, how do you feel about used lenses. Just curious towards your experiences as i feel like they can be bargains. Lenses are built to last a long time if they're taken care of right? Sorry for the long post but thanks in advanced!

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/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/Timeuhr · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know why everyone puts cleaning gear in such high priority, my gear is still perfectly clean after 3 years of use. A good bag will hold loads of dust away from your gear.
Together with my first Dsrl (I'm a Canon user but I got to work with Nikon cameras quite often) I got the essential stuff:

  • Adobe Lightroom - heads up the best software to edit and store your RAWs in my opinion
  • Tripod - my first tripod was quite cheap because I was a on a low budget, but it did it's job till I moved to Manfrotto
  • Remote shutter release - Should do it's job, if you want to shoot timelapse you'll have to buy an intervalometer remote
  • SD cards - I suggest to always go with class 10 cards if you mainly shoot RAW and videos (high data rates)

    After all that stuff I got my first prime lens. The 50mm f/1.8 (Canon).

    The good old so called nifty fifty helped me to learn so much about composition and framing because you have to think about how to frame your subject rather than to just use zoom etc. It also has such a great sharpness and beautiful bokeh. It's a really great lens for portraits! Of course this also applies to the Nikon 50mm.

    The Nikon equivalent to Canons 50mm f/1.8 lens runs around $190 which will give you great optical performance, a lens pouch, plus if you ever feel like upgrading from your D3200 the flexibility of being able to use this lens with all of Nikon's Dsrl (internal autofocus motor).
u/wanakoworks · 2 pointsr/canon
  1. It all really depends on your budget, but for Macro: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, or the EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro. For portrait, I'd say to start of with the EF 50mm 1.8

  2. Your T5 is compatible with all Canon EF and EF-S lenses.

  3. Buying used is a great way to save some money on quality lenses. Like most things, it depends on the reputation of the person selling. Private sellers, make sure you do your research on them if buying on Ebay or Amazon or something., B&H Used and Adorama Used are great places to buy used and inspected equipment with a decent warranty. Also the Canon USA Refurbished store is an excellent place to buy. They have stuff that Canon has officially looked over and comes with the same 1 year warranty as their new stuff. I've bought a lot from them and have been very happy with it.

    Hope this helps!
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/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/jseliger · 2 pointsr/photography

Doesn't matter much. Personally, I'd take the t2i because it's a level "above" the Nikon D3x00 series (the D5x00 series is Nikon's equivalent), but see also below.

I wrote this for some other threads:

The T2i and 18 - 55mm are fine places to start; so are their Nikon and Sony equivalents. If you have any friends who are interested in photography, ask them and buy whatever they use, because they'll be able to help you better than a bunch of people on the Internet. The differences among cameras at this level are really small—think f/11 small—and you're better off learning how to use your camera and how to think photographically than agonizing over which to buy.

If you're like most people, you'll eventually want to explore fixed-length primes. Canon sells a $100 50mm prime, and so does Nikon. Once you have some experience with the kits lens and the "nifty 50," you'll be ready for something else—but what that "something else" is depends on what you shoot.

See the Digital Photography Review Canon t2i guide, the Digital Photography Review learning guide, and How to make the jump from automatic to manual. If you have questions after reading them closely, come back and ask.

The important thing is learning your camera and training your eye. For the former, a knowledgeable user can help; so can a book. I got David Busch's t2i guide and like it fine. I'm sure there are others; get whichever you see as most useful.

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/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/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/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/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/code_and_coffee · 1 pointr/photography

If I were you I'd go out and try to shoot some landscape photography with your 18-55mm lens and take a look at the shots afterwards to determine if the wide-angle is necessary. 18mm is pretty wide and would work well for a lot of landscape shots but you go shooting with it and if you think you need a bit wider then go for it!

Getting a telephoto lens would, like you said, give you a wider range of shots and would be great for wildlife photography when you're out shooting landscapes and spot a deer, or other animal.

Another lens you might want to consider is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 which is great for portraits and it's only $110.

There's this bundle here for $350 it includes the 10-18mm lens you mentioned as well as the 50mm lens I mentioned.

Some other options:

Canon 24mm f/2.8 which is a lot of people on this sub recommend as a good general purpose lens. ($150)

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is another highly recommend wide-angle lens mentioned on this sub, manual focus only but it's cheap! ($300)


Also, check out this thread from yesterday! It was basically asking people from this sub what their favorite relatively cheap lens were and I found it extremely helpful.

u/kabbage123 · 2 pointsr/videography

Hi /u/nerdress -

The Rode Videomic Pro is a pretty good mic but the t3i is really, really bad for audio no matter how good the microphone. I'd strongly suggest getting an external recorder like the H4N or, at the very minimum, a H1N. You may want to pair it with a XLR shotgun mic like this if you can find the $$$.

A tripod is something that can last for many years, but the one you linked to is really bottom of the barrel. This is something I'd suggest investing a little more money into, you are going to want a universal fluid head specifically if you plan on doing video work semi-regularly. I'd get a semi-compact Manfrotto tripod like that one, you won't regret it.

Lastly, do you plan on using the kit lens? I'd suggest grabbing the famous nifty fifty. It's a legend for many reasons (super sharp, great lowlight, durable as can be).

Also you are going to want to get this battery grip for the t3i if you don't have one already. I remember when I shot on a t3i I purchased that out of whim, and I'm pretty sure I never took it off for 3+ years. It not only extends your battery, but it makes the camera much more comfortable to hold.

Hope some of this helps, sounds like you'll be in good shape! Remember, audio is just as important as video, so it's smart to invest in that type of gear.

u/filya · 1 pointr/astrophotography

Sorry, I didn't provide much background - Here is something I posted in an earlier thread
> 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?
> 1. A tracker : Ioptron SkyTracker OR Vixen Polarie
> 2. A good solid tripod and ball head
> 3. 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!

Basically, I have already tried my hand at the milky way and the moon. Without a telescope or a longer zoom lens, I doubt I could do planetary photography. Once I convince myself to buy an Ioptron Skytracker, it could open me up to getting shots of the Pleiades cluster, Andromeda galaxy, Orion nebula. Hence my question.

So it just coincidence then, that all three of them are around the same part of the sky?

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/kingofnima · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Just to compare, here is a selection from the Canon side of things with Amazon used prices:
Canon 7d - $990
Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $340
These two are a great basis to work off off and get you to $1330.

If you want to spend some more you could add the following:
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - 100
Canon Speedlite 430EX - 235

But to be honest, if your wife is just starting out and money is a bit tight, don't go out spending $900 or more on a body. As most people will tell you, picture quality is mostly due to lenses. Canon t3i, Canon t4i or 60D as well as Nikon 3200 and 5100 are all excellent bodies and have more than enough features to keep her happy. If you get either of those bodies and a decent 17-50mm lens as well as a 50mm prime she will have great tools to learn on with space to grow.

Just like daegon I would recommend to buy used. Most Photographers look out for their things quite well and most of these lenses and bodies are made at quite good quality levels. I hope this helps.

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/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/I_Like_To_Bike · 1 pointr/videography

No problem!

You perfectly described AF-D vs AF-S. The AF-D are significantly cheaper (they are the older generation) coming with the drawback of louder focusing mechanisms and most likely with the added benefit of manual focus rings. Just to be clear, you can operate AF S lenses on both cameras with or without focus motors. It's only AF-D that have the restriction.

Honestly the deal from your friend is nice camera wise, but those lenses are nowhere near the quality you'd get from a good AF-D and maybe a slightly older camera. This is for a few reasons: although the D3300 sensor is newer and may have better high iso performance, those two lenses are f/4 and f/3.5 as opposed to a 1.8 or 2.8 you could easily get for AF-D. Furthermore, those lenses are zoom lenses. While you can get great quality from zoom lenses, take the holy grail 14-24 or 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for example, they have nowhere near the quality : price ratio you can get from a fixed lens.

Here's what I would recommend given your most recent response:

Nikon D7000 for ~$500.
Nikkor 50mm AF f/1.8D lens for ~$125 and I would save up for the Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.8G and the Nikkor 85mm AF f/1.8D for a longer lens to add to your bag.

Make sure to shop around because Amazon isn't always the best option. Just to demonstrate, if you went with the 85mm AF-S you would spend an extra $150 and if you go for the 50mm AF-S you would spend an extra $100. That $250 in savings gives you enough to get the 35mm 1.8G and a couple of SD cards, an extra D7000 battery, or maybe a tripod or some other accessory you will undoubtedly pick up after your main purchase!

u/thejesteroftortuga · 1 pointr/blackfriday

I love the T5i! It's a fun and quality camera that shoots pretty good video (as well as some great photo). In my opinion it's not as good as the D7100, but it's not trying to compete with that. The T5i compares to a Nikon D5100.

In any case, I think it's a great camera. For this deal specifically, the 18-55 bundle is good, but I'd get the bundle+free accessories and this lens; then you're all set.

I'll warn you though that there's a slight learning curve if you've never used a DSLR before - the folks (and sidebar) at /r/photography definitely can help you there!

If you'd prefer a much simpler, but quality camera I'd recommend looking into a mirrorless system. They're all the rage nowadays and are quite excellent for the "people who want good cameras but aren't photographers" group.

u/Phillipspc · 1 pointr/SonyAlpha

Hello everyone!
Just got the a6000 recently with some christmas money and I freaking love it already. I've been doing some research and I want to try out an upgraded lens. The kit is fine, but I'm definitely seeing the benefits of a lower aperture prime (more bokeh effect, better in low light, etc.)

I've narrowed down my search to the Sony SEL35F18, SEL50F18, and the Sigma 30mm F2.8

The SEL35F18 definitely seems best to me overall, and I'm thinking it probably makes sense to just suck it up and go straight for that. However the Sigma is also attractive because it seems like a great budget alternative. The SEL50F18 is probably last on my list because at ~$300 currently, its just not a significant enough difference in price from the 35... Any advice is appreciated!

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/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/beley · 2 pointsr/videography

24mm isn't wide on a crop sensor - that's the equivalent of a 35mm lens. I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and it's a great lens, but it's really not that wide either and it focus hunts a bit and the focus is pretty loud. I do use it in MF some for video, or when you don't care about the on camera audio (even with an external shoe mount mic). Still though, 17-18mm is not really that wide on a crop sensor Canon.

If aperture is not a big issue then I'd recommend the Canon STM 10-18mm - it's really wide and made for crop sensor lenses and the STM motor is really silent. Autofocus works extremely well. It's a great affordable wide angle lens for video.

I haven't used it for video (yet) but the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is an amazing quality ultrawide for the price. Might be worth checking out reviews that use it for video if it's in your budget. I tried one out at B&H a few years back (only on photo mode unfortunately) and was really impressed. It's been on my wish list ever since.

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/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/see_dee · 1 pointr/Nikon is a good resource for info. There are literally tons of online resources, blogs, videos, etc scattered across the web.

Definitely read the manual as the D7100 is an intense camera for someone unfamiliar with DSLRs (good choice though, I love mine).

Try to use manual settings as often as possible. You'll definitely want to understand the shutter and aperture relationship...they're like peas and carrots.

As for baby pics, check out out the nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D lens. It's very affordable and you'll love the shallow depth of field at f/1.8. The lenses you have will be great. Here is some info on aperture and depth of field:

Here's a link for the nikkor 50mm lens on amazon:

Here is a bit on prime lenses vs zoom lenses:

Eventually you'll want a tripod.

Shoot lots of pictures.

Do you have photoshop or Lightroom? RAW files are extremely awesome:

Pretend you're the paparazzi with friends, not strangers.

Have fun and be creative.

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/BWeidlichPhoto · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

I choose Canon because it has a better (wider) mount, magic lantern firmware, and less expensive lenses. (Many of Nikon's are optically better)

Nikon's generally have a little more dynamic range but I prefer Canon's colors.

I love Canon's ergonomics: the joystick and wheel on their 1D, 5D, 7D, and 50D are awesome to shoot with. They put the Iso button where I feel it belongs. But you'll get used to any button layout after a couple shoots so it's all a matter of preference.

Canons still shoot better video than Nikon but Nikons have and will continue to improve.

But some people care less about video than I do and while Nikon's mount is smaller it hasn't changed so there's a lot more Nikon glass out there from the film days. So each system has their advantages it's silly to fanboy one brand so whatever saves you money.

What do your friends/coworkers shoot being able to borrow equipment is a pretty big factor to. Most of my coworkers/friends shoot Canon but I've borrowed a Nikon body and lens a handful of times with no complaints.

Since you're already invested into Canon I wouldn't switch brands unless you really weren't happy with it for some reason. I don't think the smaller brands like Pentax and Sony have the kind of used market that Canon/Nikon have and they don't have many if any full frame cameras. Canon has made 9 FF bodies to date if my memory serves me right and 4 Ap-H (1.3X) camera bodies. I don't know how many FF bodies Nikons made so far (since they don't progress in name as sensibly as Canons) but they're out there.

Consider investing in a 24-70 or a 70-200 now and getting a 5D II or III in a couple years when they've come down in price further. If you need to go wider as I mentioned in the other comment Rokinons 14mm f/2.8 is less than $400 new on amazon.. It's manual focus only but it's so wide that won't be an issue also buildings rarely move.

I started with a t3i and graduated to a 1D for shooting sports. I still use the t3i for video and timelapses. But in a 2 years I'll own a 5D just need another lens or two first.

u/dhiltonp · 0 pointsr/photography

The stickied QA thread would be a better place for this. Also, here's the faq.

Still, to give you a little something more, at your price range used is a pretty good option.

Megapixels don't matter. Get a camera made with a 1", m43 or aps-c sized sensor on a camera made within the past 3 (maybe 5) years.

All the brands are solid. Find one you like and buy it. If you're going new, a local camera store will probably match the going rate online.

There are lots of options with different strengths, but in your price range they're pretty much all good cameras and all will produce great images.

I prioritize portability, but also like being able to change lenses to get better low-light performance (etc.), so I have a m43 camera. You can get a used body (e-pl5, e-pl7, e-m10) plus a 25mm lens (50mm equivalent) for about your desired price point: panasonic lens, e-pl7.

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/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/mmcnama4 · 1 pointr/photography

I'm looking for a wide-angle lens and they're at different ends of the spectrum and I'm trying to decide which to invest in.

Two lenses I'm looking at:

  1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L ll USM - $1449

  2. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II - $417.82

    Some details:

  • Using a Canon T5i (crop factor of 1.6x)
  • Looking for a wide aperture at 2.8
  • Looking for an autofocus lens

    I can afford both options, but I'm hesitant to spend an extra $1k if it doesn't make sense given the two lenses I'm considering. On one hand, the Tokina will allow me to take advantage of my full sensor (and save me a grand) and give me a full 11mm-16mm lens. On the other hand, the Canon+crop factor puts me at roughly a 36mm-56mm lens.

    So, why does the Canon even bare consideration? Not is it well reviewed, but it's conceivable that I'd own a full-frame camera at some point. Logic here being get a great lens and be somewhat prepared for the future.

    I've also used the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Fixed Lens and loved that, except for the fact it was fixed.

    Looking for input on this as I weigh my options.

    TL/DR: Considering two lenses. One is very well reviewed, but very expensive and meant for a full frame camera which I do not currently have. The other is significantly less expensive, still well reviewed (albeit not as well) and does not have to deal with the crop factor.

    edit: also open to other lens recomendations.
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/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/gh5046 · 2 pointsr/photography

Look at prime lenses my friend.

  • You could pick up a couple fast (large aperture) prime lenses for $800. If you buy them used you can get three of them. Take a look at this page to see what Canon lenses are available. For example, I have used the EF 35mm f/2 (~$350) and EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (~$500) and they are both nice lenses.

  • Even though the 50mm f/1.8 II is a great lens for the cost, the EF 50mm f1.4 USM (~$400) is a worthwhile upgrade. Faster, less CA, sharper, higher quality build, smoother focusing, etc. I love it for both photos and video.

  • I do not own this lens, but the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (~$800) is a wonderful portrait and landscape photography lens. And because it's fast it can be used for action and event photography, however it is limiting because of its long reach.

  • The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (~$600) is also a good lens. Great for both macro and portrait photography. There is also the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. L class glass with IS for $300-$400 more.

    Regarding your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: If you're shooting wider than 15mm make sure you take off the hood, otherwise you'll end up with some funky vignetting. :)
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/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/provideocreator · 1 pointr/videography

I would start with 2 prime lens:

  1. Panasonic 25mm F/1.7. I'm sure you're heard of the legendary 50mm lens. This is the equivalent for micro 4/3 camera.

  2. Panasonic 14mm F/2.5. A wider angle lens is a good addition depending on what scene you're shooting.

    Then you need to be able to record high quality audio. Typically cameras don't have the best microphones.

  • The Rode VideoMic Pro is a good quality option to improve your sound.

  • Another option is the Tascam DR-40. This is a standalone audio recorder with its own microphones. Tascam's a good brand for these, and you can use them with other microphones, or lavalier microphones if you choose to use those.

    Finally, one big factor that separates professional-looking video from amateur is smooth motion. I would get a Glidecam. These have a bit of a learning curve to them, but once you get used to it you'll get some amazing shots.

    Good luck with everything. You've got a good camera so there should be nothing keeping you from getting great shots!

    Edit: formatting

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/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/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/beherenow13 · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

I know canon equipment, not so much Nikon. Two lenses fit your requirements, inexpensive, very good, Manual focus.

One is the 28 f/2.8 AIS

The other is the 50mm f/1.8D

If you are going to be on stage, the first one is good. The second one is great for close ups from the front row, but no group shots except from further back. With small venue, wide angle may make sense. I have found the good, and unusual images are close ups. I use wide angle to fill in the gaps, but depend on the telephoto to make my work 'special', better than the average person. Honestly, either one is good, because I do not know how close you will be.

In post production, multiple images can be combined for a montage. I find that more effective than a plain group shot. I could make only the 50mm work, better than I could make only the 28mm. You will have to use your legs, shoot some from the back of the audience area.

Others with more knowledge of Nikon equipment could be helpful, but autofocus is not a requirement. Neither are zooms, that are expensive, over your budget.

u/joppetie · 1 pointr/Cameras

I may be biased by making this choice in the past, but I and many others with me agree on a few things:

  • The Nikon D3200-3400 have a better sensor than equivalent Canon bodies. (much higher resolution, better dynamic range)

  • Fast primes are mostly cheaper on the Canon side than on the Nikon side

    Having said that, I still believe that with a budget of $500, you'll get the best results with a Nikon D3200-3400 (really doesn't matter which, they all have virtually the same sensor) and a fast prime (35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8). Don't bother with the kit lens, it's really not any better than acceptable.

    I originally bought the D3300 as a kit, but since I bought my 35mm f/1.8, I simply didn't use the kit lens anymore, so I sold it.


    Now, I looked around a bit on Amazon, and it seems that such a combination would set you back about $514: Body and 35mm

    However, if you're willing to go second hand for the body or lens, you could save a fair chunk, even maybe even upgrade to the D5
u/parzivalsanorak · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography
  • Bodies:

  • If you're buying used, pay attention to the number of clicks the body has gone through. Basically, like mileage on a car.

  • I wouldn't go back too far, but a generation or two is not an issue. Personally, I have a D3300 and it's perfectly fine. IIRC, it has the same sensor as the D3400 and the D5xxx and D7xxx of the same generation (and the D3500's might be marginally improved). What you'll be missing is comfort (e.g. an articulating screen, more focus points) and autofocus on AI and AF lenses. For $50 more, I'd definitely get the D3300 rather than the older models.

  • The D80 came out in 2006. A lot has happened since.

  • Lenses:

  • Check out which ones you're getting. E.g., there are three modern versions of the 18-55, two AF-S and one AF-P (most recent one) and of those, there are versions with and without image stabilisation (VR). if you can, get the one with VR. The same goes for the 55-200, there are three versions of that as well.

  • Assuming this 35mm is bundled with the D3300, that thing is a steal for $50. It typically costs thrice that where I live, used. Personally just got one, it's fun and a great lens for environmental portraits and street.

  • I'd assume you'd want a wide, fast lens for landscape and astro. Here's an extensive article on the matter if you want to delve deep. But don't fret. Unless you can get an exceptionally sweet deal, buy something simple that gets you started and try stuff out.
u/scienceblowsmymind · 1 pointr/astrophotography

Hi all! I am new to photography in general and I have a question about doing astrophotography with just a DSLR (does that still count?) since I don't have a telescope yet. I actually don't even have a camera yet but I am probably going to get the Nikon D5300 with the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I'd like a second lens and my budget is 200ish - I'm okay with used ones and I'm okay waiting to save more money to up my budget.

I want to be able to photograph the night sky and the northern lights and I've read that there are slightly different recommendations for each. (I'll also like to use the camera for travel and landscapes and whatnot.) [This page] ( has a nice table toward the bottom for night sky photography and made me consider this 35mm f/1.8 lens. And I read on Dave Morrow's site that a wide angle f/2.4-4 is preferable for the northern lights. My understanding is that the standard lens fits this suggestion. I couldn't find a prime lens within my budget that fits that range.

Should I get the lens I linked above? Should I wait until I actually get the camera and have a better sense of what things are?


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/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/SD_Conrad · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

Unfortunately, there's not much that's cheap when it comes to photography.

"Macro" is a very specific form of photography. With the 50mm lens you linked I think the minimum focus distance would be at least 1.5 feet-2 feet. Meaning if an object is less than 2 feet away your lens will not be able to focus on it. That's the key to macro photography though, getting right up close and making small details bigger.

So while the depth of field of the 50mm you linked here will be much more shallow than the 18-55mm you own (at 55mm the widest you could go would be f/5.6) it won't do much better in the "marco" department.

With that said, you could get an extender tube. They super cheap but take a little practice to use well. Here's a shot of a penny I did using an extender tube:

You can see the depth of field is so shallow, that because I wasn't shooting the penny head on the top of Lincoln's head is out of focus but the date is in focus. You'll need a tripod or a very very steady hand to be successful. It's hard to use but perfectly doable.

Here is the tube:

Very cheap but not necessarily cheaply made. Although I'm paranoid and take great care there's no strain where the tube attaches to my camera body. I don't think you'd have to spend the money on a new lens to do macro stuff.

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/trikster2 · 1 pointr/SonyAlpha

Looking at your album all but one picture is taken at 16mm.

So the question is, is that perfect for you or would you get significant use out something much wider like the 12mm lens?

In the middle of this article there is a nice picture of a forest that if you hover over the numbers on the bottom will let you switch between 10 14 17 22 mm.. This is on a canon 1.6x crop sensor so on sony's 1.5x sensor the 14 will be closer to 15mm.

Another alternative if MF is ok would be Rokinons 14mm F2.8. It's a few bucks cheaper than the 12 mm and Folks seem to love it for astrphotgraphy and it may be more useful as a walking around lens:

u/TheSummerTriangle · 2 pointsr/Nikon

In general, they're right; you should invest in lenses over cameras.

The question you need to answer, before you go on, is "Am I going to upgrade to a full-frame (FX) camera body, or stick with my current crop-sensor (DX) body?". In general, FX has some advantages; larger sensor means you can go wider-angle, and have a higher dynamic range. But it also means you're going to spend 2-5x as much for lenses -- it is much cheaper to manufacture lenses for DX bodies than FX bodies.

In general, for people in your situation, I strongly recommend staying with a DX body for the time being. You will be able to get 95% of the same effect for 30% of the cost.

Your current kit is the two kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. If you want to upgrade, I would strongly recommend getting a few fast, high quality primes: the 35mm 1.8 DX is excellent for most "normal" uses (it has about the same angle of view as your eyes), and the 85mm 1.8 is excellent for portraits including for the yearbook you mentioned. Your 55-200, set all the way at 200mm, is also a fine portrait lens.

The other thing that you need, if you don't have one already, is a hotshoe flash like the SB500 or SB700. Better lighting will improve the quality of portraits much more than better lenses will.

You've got good taste in lusting after a fixed tele zoom, and both the FL ED and VRII are great. But for the purpose you described, either of those lenses is like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. And an expensive one, too.

u/inorman · 1 pointr/photography

I highly recommend NOT getting the fisheye converter or the starter pack kit of cheapo accessory lenses. I know it sounds like a good deal because you're getting a lot of "stuff" but frankly all of those things are complete and utter crap. Take the $75 and the extra $220 dollars you wish to spend and spend it on a fast prime like the AF-S DX NIKKOR
35mm f/1.8G
and spend at least a little more on a decent tripod with a ballhead like this affordable Dolica Tripod. I used one of those tripods for years doing studio work and landscapes and it's actually pretty good. A steal for $50 and sure to be better than the one you originally linked to.

Trust me on this one, you'll thank me later. That 35mm f/1.8 will be the best lens you'll own for a long time, guaranteed.

u/Streetiebird · 5 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

I am a Nikon shooter, so I will give my opinion from that point of view.

If you're serious about getting back into photography, I would skip the entry-level bodies like the D3400, and D5500 and go up to the D7200 (~$1300 with 18-150mm lens). It's not full-frame, and has a crop-sensor so focal lengths are different from film cameras (1.5x crop factor so 35mm lenses look like they're 50mm), and the pixels on the sensor are less big physically, but unless you're trying to go pro the difference does not matter much. Also you won't break the bank, and it has amazing capabilities like auto-bracketing and very high ISO which you can use for landscapes/sunsets/night sky photography and also has a built-in flash (unlike the pro bodies) which can control the Nikon creative lighting system if you get more into portraits and want to achieve some simple off-camera lighting.

As an additional lens you could consider the nikkor 50mm f1.8 ($217), since it would be much better for portraits than the 18-150.

That leaves quite a bit for a computer. If you're not hooked on Apple products, I would suggest a refurbished Dell through their factory outlet and look around at either the XPS desktops or XPS laptops. Get at least 16GB RAM and a 6th gen Core i7 processor. You're probably looking at around $1000 for a decent rig.

You MUST get Adobe Lightroom. This should be mandatory. You can get the bundle with Photoshop if you pay by the month, or you can buy a standalone copy of Lightroom on Amazon.

Good luck!!!

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/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/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/Enduer · 1 pointr/photography

It depends on the pictures you're taking.

A 50mm f/1.8 is always a good choice. About $100. It's better for portraits or walking around than landscapes though.

A wide angle zoom like this 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 from Canon wouldn't be bad. It'll let you get wide angle landscape shots of basically anything. Would not be the best for low light situations though and if you ever go full frame you would have to sell it.

Finally, more expensive, but generally worth it, is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You can get them used to save a bit of money and the best part is generally lenses hold their value very well, unlike camera bodies. This lens will be much more appropriate for low light shots or pictures of the stars.

If you're gonna splurge, splurge on lenses. Hope that helps a bit or gets some ideas flowing.

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/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/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/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/bard108 · 1 pointr/foodphotography

When it comes to the close up and extremes you'll be looking for a macro lens. My goto on the job is the 100mm 2.8 L (the non-L lens is a pretty good place to start. I've actually got a used and abused one going, get in touch if you're interested). You might also want to consider the 50mm 1.8 (you can find a better price than that). It won't give you the super close ups but it will give you some real depth of field to start working with.

Lighting... that kit might be slight overkill with the backgrounds. Those lights also don't let you use new modifiers as you continue your journey. You may find you prefer the look from a softbox than an umbrella and you're kinda stuck with those. I would consider these if the price stays low...
Having said all that, it's important to start somewhere and that's not a bad place at all!

There aren't really any steps to follow to get into the business. The best advice I can give is to shoot! Keep shooting! Learn, ask, watch youtube videos. Start looking at the photos you like and try and work out how they were lit. Look into food styling.

When you're confident in what you can do, try going into a local restaurant and offer them a little shoot for free. Maybe offer them 1 photo and the option to buy the others if they like them. Work breeds work.
That's all the advice I can think of at the moment but you can message me if you have any questions!

edit: Links and bits

u/frostickle · 2 pointsr/photography


D3100 single lens kit for $499, then I'd try to get a 50mm f1.8 for about $100. I don't think you can get it off of Amazon for $100, so perhaps try craigslist or ebay or something for a second hand one. If you want to spend a bit more money, the 35mm f1.8 would be better.

For Canon:

You'll have to go for an older model T2i for $599.

In my opinion the Nikon is much better. It is preferable to get a prime lens (the 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8) and a normal zoom lens (the kit lens).

I don't like twin lens kits, because they give you a normal zoom lens, and a long telephoto zoom lens. The telephoto lens is useless most of the time. It is mainly useful for taking photos of wild animals, birds, etc. or spying on people like a creep.

The prime lens is great because it is much sharper than a zoom lens, and you can use it in lower light. (It has a bigger opening, and lets more light in)
For $600, I would actually prefer to buy a mirrorless camera like an Olympus EPL-1 kit for $270 and then buy an extra 20mm f1.7 lens to go with it.

Or if you wanted a slightly bigger mirrorless camera, the Panasonic G3 is great and only $549.

Don't let anyone tell you that mirrorless cameras have worse quality. In daylight they'll be exactly as good, and even at night time micro four thirds cameras give excellent performance if you know what you're doing. I shot these photos on a Panasonic G2.

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/DickieJoJo · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

While others may have differing opinions I really like sticking with the manufacturer's lenses as there is a guarantee that these will always work with your future body purchases (assuming of course you remain with said brand, duh).

So if you're looking for 35mm I would recommend the following from the cheapest reputable retailer: nikkor 35mm 1.8.

35 is great for filming too because in terms of perspective its closest to the human eye. The 50mm is super popular as well as it provides a nice amount of zoom. I happen to own a 35mm and an 85mm though and while the nifty 50 would be great at times I make it work with the two fast lenses I have.

u/sethmeece · 1 pointr/photography

I'd recommend a lens with a wide zoom range. For lifestyle-type shots where you are shooting yourself/your friends/the journey from a more intimate perspective (read -- up close) and the occasional landscape, I'd recommend a lens that gives you at least a 18-24mm focal length at the bottom end. It's hard to take pictures of the car or your friends with a 200mm telephoto lens, unless you want an up close and personal shot of the pores on your friends' noses.

My 18-135mm kit lens that came with my Canon works wonderfully for me when I'm on trips. It's very versatile. The lens that I'm referring to is this (this is a CANON lens, it won't fit your Nikon):

Alternatively, for YOUR particular camera, I'd recommend something like this Sigma 17-50mm:

The latter lens has a shorter zoom range (17-50mm) than my Canon lens that I mentioned, but you get a nice, low aperture of f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom.

A cheaper option that is similar to the Sigma lens that I mentioned above is a Nikon lens that can be found here:

The Nikon lens listed has a variable aperture, and the lowest that it will go is 3.5. I'd spend the extra ~$100 and get the Sigma lens. You'd probably get a TON of use out of that Sigma for a long time.

Please feel free to reach out if you have some more questions. :-) There are some great people here.

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/OmniaMors · 1 pointr/macro

There is a gap between blowing thousands and investing in a solid set up. I would strongly advise against getting cheap gear. Youre just throwing money away and going to frustrate yourself. Not to toot my own horn, but I feel like I have gotten good results with some cheap gear. Most of those pictures were taken with a crop sensor nikon, a cheap prime lens, and macro spacers.

My recommendation would be to start with a D3200 for $240, a 35mm for $140, and macro tubes $40. That only puts your total at $420, and would give you the ability to get the exact same photos I have in my aforementioned gallery. Most of the time used gear works great, and there is really no reason to spend on new at this level. Get the D3200 first and learn the camera, you can use the /r/photoclass2019 subreddit and the northrup youtube channel for free. The latter also has a book thats highly regarded but I havent used it myself. I would also suggest you look into Dom's work as my personal favorite macro shooter.

Once youve learned the camera, get the lens next, then the macro spacers.

In my experience with that lens, you can stop it down to f/8 and still get crisp shots at the macro level, which really helps save your depth of field.

I know it sucks that there is a price barrier, but I promise you will be much happier investing in good gear than wasting money on 100 different terrible phone lenses.

u/newagelimited · 1 pointr/NewTubers

14-42mm is a solid coverage lens, especially if you're starting out. Keep in mind, this is not a full frame camera, and depending what format you're shooting in your crop is 2x. So 14mm, basically, functions like a 28mm lens and 42mm is closer to 84 and so on. That should be fine for the majority of wide shots as well as close ups.

Another positive for this camera is that lenses for the micro 4/3 mount are relatively cheap compared to Sony or Canon lenses. I would recommend the 25mm 1.7 lens Panasonic sells for something decent in low light situations though. It's a very inexpensive auto focus lens. Not a zoom lens though so you'll need to plan around that focal range.

Either way, for a starter cam this is by far the best option out there imo. As I said, I shoot commercial and narrative stuff exclusively on Sony and I wouldn't change that. But I also spent 3-4 years shooting on Panasonic as well, and won film festivals with things I've shot on that same exact sensor. It's fantastic. I still shoot my podcast on G7's because they have no recording time limit, exceptional battery life, and have that great native image.

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/bigpresh · 1 pointr/photography

For reference, I use the 18-55mm kit lens the D3100 came with, and also picked up the following lenses:

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - I've found this to be a pretty damn reasonable telephoto & macro lens for the price. A couple of photos taken with it, for reference: wet flower (macro), WizzAir jet landing (full zoom), pigeon eating bread (full zoom).

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - lovely fast prime - I couldn't really justify the extra cash to go for the 1.4 version, but this one has worked very well for me so far. 35mm on a crop sensor like the D3100/D3200 ends up about the same as a 50mm on a full-frame camera. A couple of sample shots: custom motorcycle engine, York gate emblem, Wilmot-Breeden calormeter.

I also grabbed an ancient used Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 prime for £30, but as a lens without a focus motor, it can only be used in full manual. However, it can also produce some good images, e.g. bacon roll, lily flower, laptop keyboard. If you're willing to play around in full manual mode (and I'd recommend it, if you want to learn the most you can about photography), starting with something like that could make a lot of sense.

Hope this helps somewhat.

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/Bester2001 · 2 pointsr/Cameras

One word Awesom. A great deal thr Nikon D7000 is one of the best DSLRs on the market even with the 7100 just out now there are benefits to the 7100 and the newer Canon 70D (most notably being improved HD Video capabilities and improved auto focus) but for a first time DSLR purchase at that price it's hard to beat. If you can afford another lenses get this a $200 35mm 1.8 apature lense : it is a Fast wide angle lens perfect for portraits and general purpose shooting esp if you want that cool blurry background look and great low light pictures. And build up from there with a good 600-800$ with VR also known as image stabilization.

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/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/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/Shadrach451 · 0 pointsr/photography

I invested in a T3i when my daughter was born, and I never regretted. I'm happy to see a fellow parent that enjoys photographing the details of their children.

One piece of advice, that may or may not help with this particular shot: Grab a 50mm lens with a low aperture rating. It takes beautiful fast shots in low light, with a tight depth of field that really focuses in one your subject. They are relatively cheap. I got a f1.4 from canon for just $300 or so (which is a great deal for a prime lens), but you can get a f1.8 for less than half of that, and it would probably work about the same. Because you will be on a cropped sensor so it's going to be a pretty heavy "zoom" so you will feel like you are having to stand pretty far away from the action to fit it all into the frame. But I highly recommend it to a new parent that wants to document their children.

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/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/azivo · 1 pointr/DSLR

First, you say you want to 'upgrade', what do you mean by that exactly? What do you want to do that you can't currently do with your kit lens? Is it to achieve a 'bokeh' blurred background? Then you won't find anything like that that can also zoom in your budget.

You say the nifty fifty doesn't zoom, but your current lens does, can you not use that? Yes I agree a 50mm will probably be too tight on a crop sensor camera for a smaller apt.

The other zoom lens you mention is wider than your kit lens yes, but's it's slower and not too different from your kit lens. Do you want an even wider shot than 18mm? The kit lens is actually a pretty good range for indoor shooting, and probably suits your needs more.

But if by upgrade you do mean a faster lens, i.e. achieve a deeper depth of field (blurred background), the check out the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens. You can't zoom with it, but has an f stop of 2.8 (not as fast as the nifty fifty, but still good) and is a good standard focal length for a crop sensor of 24mm. If you need to zoom, use your zoom lens. Or move the camera closer.

u/noimnotnick · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Alright so unfortunately I wont be able to get the Tokina 11-16mm because there really no way I can afford it at the moment. But I came up with a new set i'm trying to choose from, a couple from the ones you showed me and one I found after googling.

I don't know if me telling you this will help you help me at all but i'm mainly going to be using the lens I buy for video. I am starting to be a cameraman for a friend of mine and I go with him to his performances on stage and record him. I'm also going to use it for music videos. So any lens that's good for that and is wide angle is what I want.

Anyway, the lens are:

Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8
(I have this one first because I found this video on youtube and I was pretty amazed by the quality of the video, I don't know if it's because the camera is a T3i or what, I like it.)

[Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5]

and the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4

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!