If you go the Canon route, at the very least you should convince her to pick up the $120 EF 50mm 1.8, which is very light and small, and could easily be carried anywhere she would consider carrying a 550D. When it comes to lowlight, and portraits she will absolutely love it. A 550D is something she would likely need to have a camera bag with, and you could fit the EF 50 into a small pocket easily.
Honestly I would probably lean more towards the Nex/M43 side of it, as these are "purse-able" and the lenses are small enough to easily carry too.
I just need a little advice on what to go for now I have my budget nailed down. I've got £600 tops. That's gotta include everything for my initial kit. Also, I want to go new (I know I could get more for my £££ buying used but I just feel more comfortable going new; warranty, the 'newness factor' etc).
I also want Nikon or Canon, either is fine.
So, if you don't mind taking a sec, what would you buy for that budget? To give you an idea of UK prices, here's my local camera store, Amazon is also cheaper on some cameras.
Are you planning on taking video? If not, go for a [ame="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J3Y9U6/"]Canon T3[/ame]. It's a nice little camera for anyone starting out with DSLRs, and only costs around $500 (USD).
Are you planning on taking video? If not, go for a Canon T3. It's a nice little camera for anyone starting out with DSLRs, and only costs around $500 (USD).
Nah, no video, just stills.
Would that last me? I know my budget isn't huge but if I could get a body that won't need upgrading for a long while thatd be awesome, then I can focus all future money on glass without feeling like the body is inadequate after a little while.
Sony A560
Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - Got for a bargain, seller didn't not weather it was the 1.4 or 1.7 version, paid about $50.... Usually sells for $2-300.
Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
Minolta 70-200mm 4.0 beercan
I bought a used A560, and what I got was an essentially new one in box with everything. Someone must have taken a few shots and returned it. It did have a front-focusing issue that I was really bummed about at first, but after doing some research, there are a few set screws that are easy to adjust. Now I've got my focus tailored to my 50/1.4 at 1.4, and it is quite sharp. I contemplated sending it off to sony, as I believe this camera is even under warranty, but the focus calibration was super easy to do, and isn't invasive/warranty voiding.
Stuff I like:
Build Quality/Ergonomics, very comfortable and feels quite solid. It would be better if it was a 2-wheel style body, but all in all a big improvement.
Good controls and interface, I think I would be a little more happy with a Canon, but the transition was pretty seamless.
Very fast shooting
Af accuracy and speed, super fast phase-detect AF in live view, makes live view... actuially worth using! Focuses in almost no light. LV/FCLV can be used to great effect to manual focus in almost total darkness.
Very good high ISO performance. ISO 100-1600 is great, set auto ISO up to 1600 and never worry about noise. 3200 is good, 6400 is usable, 12800 usable re-sized pretty small. Multi-frame noise reduction is like magic, JPEG only, but you can get very very little noise with ISO 6400, and usable ISO 25600 with MFNR. Just nuts.
This is ISO 25600, 50mm 1.4 at 4.5 MFNR gives an ok result. Much better than not getting the shot. Underexposed so the noise is quite high.
Now, properly exposed, noise levels are much better! Very impressive, hand held shooting indoors at 4.5 with extremely little light.
In body IS/SSS is a huge advantage, every lens is an IS lens. This is something that you'll just never get with a Nikon/Canon, IS primes! This also is very usefull with video work. Try video hand held with a 50/1.8 or longer on a Canon system without IS, will likely be vomit-inducing. =P
Tilt-able, super high res LCD screen, very nice, mostly usable in bright sunny light. This camera can conceivable be used in LV mode exclusively if you wanted to, it is that well integrated(AF, LCD, etc). I still use the OVF when I want to be sure I get a shot, but the LV/nice screen opens up a lot more room to get creative with your shooting style.
Excellent selection of high quality, cheap-as-hell Minolta prime glass, no slouch when compared to Canon/Nikon glass either. The Minolta 50/1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses out there. Plenty of Sony/Zeiss/3rd party lenses if you need them
Video mode is fun
What I dont like:
Limited buffer(580 is supposedly better), not often a problem
Would like to be able to customize controls a little more, I dont need a D-Range button, I would rather bind that to something more useful.
Proprietary flash shoe, had to buy a $10 adaptor to use my old bounce flash
Video mode not the best, no manual controls(however you can shoot in A/S with exposure compensation) and no AF during video mode makes it a bit quirky to use.
One worry is that it looks like Sony is dropping optical viewfinders in the future, which I'm not sure that i'm excited about. Especially since the A33/A55 have compatability issues with some of the older Sigma/Quant lenses(that generally work fine on the rest of the Alpha lineup). We'll see how the A65/A77 goes though, maybe its not that big of a deal.
Overall extremely pleased with an affordable highly productive body and a new selection of small, light weight and cheap primes.
Most of the new Sigma lenses work with the SLT bodies and some that don't can be sent back to Sigma, for calibration.
EQ, Have you had a chance to test the 35mm 1.8, been thinking about picking this up, always praised in the review tests for being a stellar performer for the price.
Still i would love to see some UWE primes for the APS-C Sony bodies, been looking at the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 and it's hard to justify there price when i'm only gonna be using the lowest focal length.
Most of the new Sigma lenses work with the SLT bodies and some that don't can be sent back to Sigma, for calibration.
EQ, Have you had a chance to test the 35mm 1.8, been thinking about picking this up, always praised in the review tests for being a stellar performer for the price.
Still i would love to see some UWE primes for the APS-C Sony bodies, been looking at the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 and it's hard to justify there price when i'm only gonna be using the lowest focal length.
Yeah the sigma/quantaray lenses I have(24/2.8 and 50/2.8 macro) are 15-25 years old most likely. So likely too old/not worth it to rechip. Anyway I got them for cheap, and can resell to someone using an AXXX camera which they are fully compatible with to fund a newer AXX lens when the time comes. The Minolta 24/2.8 isn't thattttt expensive if it comes down to it.
I do have and love the 35mm 1.8. Its $150 on amazon, go buy it. No seriously, go buy the damned thing right now. Its a dirt cheap, fast and sharp ~50mm normal prime lens, light weight and not the worst build quality in the world(Slightly better than Canon 50mm 1.8, but worse than Maxxum lenses). The only reason not to get the 35/1.8 is if you're rich and love to blow your money on shit you don't need, then go get the 35/1.4 instead =P. Very sharp even at 1.8, there are few reasons not to have this lens(I can't think of any).
I'm in the market for something covering the 12-16mm (~18-24mm) range as well, options are pretty limited under $400. The older Sigma 10-20mm might be had for a little less than $300. I'm keeping an eye on these waiting to find a deal, I'd like something in the $250 range but it seems a bit unrealistic, just going to have to be patient.
Hey Earthquake, I have a question regarding shooting in very low-light situations. My friend wants me to photograph he and his band in concert, and I've never attempted shooting in such poor lighting conditions. I have a Nikon D5100, and I was looking into getting a new lens (I have the kit lens at the moment). I'm really looking into getting a nice little prime lens. I was looking into getting this one. Is there something else you'd recommend instead? I really want a nice telephoto lens (since I'm into wildlife photography). I was thinking that the telephoto would help out alot when it comes to giving nice close-up shots, but I'm guessing that for concerts, it would be wayyyyy too dark, right?
I've shot concerts with 50mm 1.8. Mine wasn't AF-S and a tad close to my liking, but this one is so should be perfect. You'll still have to crank the ISO up quite high though.
I've shot concerts with 50mm 1.8. Mine wasn't AF-S and a tad close to my liking, but this one is so should be perfect. You'll still have to crank the ISO up quite high though.
The lighting can really vary though. Some venues will light up the performers so bright that you can easily use ISO 400 to get a proper exposure where they don't clip. However you definitely want a lens with a 2.8 max aperture or faster if the lighting is shitty in any way. I recently shot some concerts with a 35mm f/2 lens and I really liked how they came out.
For a quality lens, you'll be constrained to a 70-200. the longer the lens length, the worse the optical quality is going to be. The sole exception I can think of is the Canon L grade super zoom (expensive and super heavy/large) and the Sony NEX 18-200mm, both of which are excellent, but also have small max apertures.
The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent choice for basically anyone and should be a no-brainer. enjoy!
50 mm f/1.8 is a must have lens for almost everybody with a camera It is very sharp, has 1.8 aperature and it is one of the cheapest lens out there. Also for the nikon the build quality is not bad ( as it is for Canon) and it is a very small and light lens
Get it and all you have to worry about is getting up near the front line if you want to grab few close up shots.
Just last weekend I was using mine 50mm, 1.8 canon lens and i was even able to grab some shots of the crowd farther away from the stage and all the lights.
One thing that sucks is if the light is poor even 1.8 and a high ISO is not going to help.
If you have any flashes and obviously you know the people you might set few of them on a different locations on the stage and then you will have no problems at all .
Good luck and show us some images please
Edit: I forgot now how was it for your body but I am afraid you dont have focus motor in your body (just check to make sure). I also dont remebr and dont have time to check now but I believe there was no Auto Focus motor in the lens neither which means AF is not going to work for you. As I said just double check for this and if that is the case decide if no AF is ok for you. If it is not working for you You could go to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 ..... if you have the money.
50 mm f/1.8 is a must have lens for almost everybody with a camera It is very sharp, has 1.8 aperature and it is one of the cheapest lens out there. Also for the nikon the build quality is not bad ( as it is for Canon) and it is a very small and light lens
Get it and all you have to worry about is getting up near the front line if you want to grab few close up shots.
Just last weekend I was using mine 50mm, 1.8 canon lens and i was even able to grab some shots of the crowd farther away from the stage and all the lights.
One thing that sucks is if the light is poor even 1.8 and a high ISO is not going to help.
If you have any flashes and obviously you know the people you might set few of them on a different locations on the stage and then you will have no problems at all .
Good luck and show us some images please
Edit: I forgot now how was it for your body but I am afraid you dont have focus motor in your body (just check to make sure). I also dont remebr and dont have time to check now but I believe there was no Auto Focus motor in the lens neither which means AF is not going to work for you. As I said just double check for this and if that is the case decide if no AF is ok for you. If it is not working for you You could go to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 ..... if you have the money.
Actually, the 50mm 1.8 I plan on getting does have AF-S. Which is fully supported by my body! So it's all good! I'll be sure to post pictures when I take them!
Thanks for the help, guys!
The 50/1.8 AFS or 50mm 1.4 AFS are your best/only options on that camera body. For a concert I would think something like a 85mm/1.8 would be even better, but Nikon does not offer a 85 that will focus on your body. It sort of depends on how close you can get to the band, if you're up on stage, the 50/1.8 will be great, if you're in the crowd or a little farther back, you'll want something a bit longer.
The Nikon 35/1.8 is also a really good lens to consider, I would personally recommend having both, as the 50mm may be too tight for some instances. Really the 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are so cheap its just silly not to buy them.
For zooms, you have to remember that where a 50mm ~75mm equiv lens need a min of 1/75th second to get a sharp shot, a 200mm lens needs 1/200th to get a sharp shot. You couple that with a slower zoom, and you're looking at the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 25600 or something. Just basically unusable. Nikon has only like 1 fast zoom that is also AF-S as well, so you really don't have any real options for low light tele zooms on Nikon. You would have to look at third party lenses, like Tamron, Sigma etc.
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 ~500-800
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX ~500-800
Also:
Sigma 85mm 1.4 AFS ~1000, Cheap when you look at the Nikon 85mm 1.4 AFS(~1700).
My real advice here, would be go with a Camera system that has access to fast, relatively affordable primes. If you want to do low light shooting often, your best route is fast primes, and you can only get a few fast primes in Nikon AFS. This would mean upgrading to a mid-range Nikon body, a Canon body, or a Sony body. Then you'll have much better options like:
I personally would pick something like the Minolta 50/1.7 + Sony 85mm 2.8 + Minolta 135mm 2.8 +1.7/2x teleconverter before I would take a ~600ish 2.8 third party zoom lens.
Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which helps a great deal with low light shooting, but you'll never get IS with a prime lens on Canon or Nikon. It wont help with moving objects at low shutter speeds, but it does combat camera shake a significant amount, which allows you to do some fun stuff with low shutter speeds and moving subjects, like getting nice motion blur on your subject, but also getting the static environment in sharp focus.
Regardless of all that, the Nikon 50mm/1.8 AFS is an excellent, cheap lens that you will have a lot of fun with, and might suit your needs just fine. However, if you feel you're in need of more than that down the road, re-read the above^^. =D
Another very affordable option would be to get a cheap 1.7x teleconverter, this will convert your 50mm 1.8 lens to a ~85mm 2.8 lens. This should be suitable enough for low light, and provide the sort of reach you would want for a concert. I picked up a Tamron 1.7x TC for next to nothing, but you should be able to find one for about $100 or less. Or a 2x, for a 100mm/3.5 equiv lens. The worst thing about TC's in they can degrade IQ a bit, and the light loss, personally to me, I find the IQ on my Tamron(actually its a promaster, re-branded) 1.7x is completely acceptable, and provides a better alternative to simply cropping the image in post. This is the one I have: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Promaster-1-7x-AF-Teleconverter-Nikon-Nikkor-NIB-/220833240726?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336aafd696#ht_537wt_1185 Unfortunately i'm not sure if it is compatible with AF-S lenses.
If the venue has reasonable ceilings, IE: not a concert hall with 5 story ceilings, you can pick up a cheap bounce flash, bounce it off the ceiling for ambient light and use pretty much any lens you feel like. If you're in some regular old bar or something, this may be an option.
Wow, thanks alot for the write-up EQ.
I do not plan on changing my camera any time soon. I just got it a few months back. While it *is* really unfortunate that the body doesn't have an autofocus motor, the camera itself really compensates. The sensor is absolutely incredible, and I've been truly satisfied with it so far. Like I mentioned above, I'm really into landscape and wildlife photography, so I don't think I'll have a need for a wide-range of primes. I'm almost always outdoors when there is plenty of light to see by, so a decent Telephoto zoom will do the job just fine. I just figured that with the concert coming up, I could use a prime in my collection. Boy am I glad I did, though!
I just went out and bought the Nikkor AF-S 50mm F/1.8. And all I have to say is... holy crap.
When I read all about you guys praising the Prime lens like some kind of god, I thought you were over-hyping up a little too much. But after using the D5100's kit lens (18-55mm, F/3.5-5.6) for about 3-4 months, and moving on to a really nice prime, the difference is astonishing. I was mindblown at how much clearer, sharper, and faster this prime is compared to my other kit lens. It doesn't even begin to compare. While my kit lens does perform better when I want to do close-ups, as well as landscape shots, the Prime lens blows it out of the water for just about anything else.
I now understand what the praise was all about.
Once again, thanks for the help, everyone! Very much appreciated!
Yeah, primes are where its at. Its really a huge shame that these Nikon bodies do not have a focus motor. Just a few lenses like:
16mm
18mm
20mm
24mm
28mm
That you can get for Canon/Sony but not for low end Nikon, just sucks. Where these lenses hit their prime in the 4.0-5.6 range, the AFS cheap zooms for Nikon start there, and need to be stopped down to F8 to get any sharpness. If you're shooting wide sunsets shots or something, this means cranking up the ISO another 2 stops, further reducing image quality.
I would try to keep an open mind about your camera body. People like to get really hardcore into a certain brand or specific body, and its a bit irrational. Unless you've got $2000+ tied up in lenses, it is actually very easy to switch systems, and Nikon, Canon and Sony body's of the same class/year will provide virtually identical image quality. If you ever go down that road, where you think you need to buy a very expensive 2.8 zoom because Nikon doesn't offer any primes you can use, you'll likely be better served just switching bodies(again even to a mid-range Nikon body).
I mean, I switched from a Canon to Sony system, and it took me about a week to sell all my gear, and buy the new gear. And that was body + $1250 in lenses.
Now, enough ranting. Here are some suggestions for higher quality lenses than your kit lens that fit your type of shooting and may pair better with your 50 as far as IQ goes.
hey, i didn't read through everything so beg with me if this came up already: i have a 350d for years now (since '05) and now i'm desperately looking into a new body which can shoot film as well. now, i used to say the next body I'd get wouldn't be another "entry level" dslr. looking at the price differences though: is it better to get a 550d or should i save up for the 7d? I have a few OKish lenses and would rather buy one or two more lenses then the more expensive body but read some bad reviews on the 550d's quality
Well, the 550D, 60D, and 7D all share the same sensor(600D too). So, the advantages here of the higher end bodys are ergonomics and controls.
You might be able to find a Used 60D body for around the same cost as a new 550D body, maybe just a little more. This will give you the extra control wheel and more "pro" feel. I don't think you should buy a 7D unless there is some really specific reason you need one. I personally wouldn't spend that much money on a camera if it wasn't making any money from using it.
The 7d has the ultra high end features like environment seals and really sturdy construction, that you would likely never need unless you were a professional photographer.
Now having said all that, the 550D in itself is an excellent camera, and a massive upgrade over your 350D. Go to the store and try one out, if it feels good in your hands, buy it! Its the same sensor so there really is no difference in IQ between the three. Its just a matter of how it feels, and how you need it to perform. I like the feel of the 550D much better than the 350D too, I didn't think I would want one until I felt it in my hands.
The 7D is also quite heavy, the 550D is a bit light, the 60D is a pretty good weight. Some people "complain" that the 60D doesn't have a place between the 550D and 7D, but I think there is plenty of room between the low-end ergonomics of the 550D, and the high end price of the 7D. In this regard, the 60D fits in very well.
Looking at prices, you can get a used 60D body for $750-950, which is a bargain compared to a new 550D.
What specifically are you worried about with the quality of the 550D? Really I would go for the cheapest body that fits your needs, and spend the rest on glass. Lenses lenses lenses - its where the money should go.
I was wondering if there was any way to help fix a reversed lens to your camera body. I was experimenting with a reversed lens for macro the other day, and I was blown away by how close you can focus. I'd get a close-up filter or extension tubes, but they're pretty damn expensive. Perhaps this would be a cheaper alternative?
Yeah you can buy things, but knock off extension tubes are cheap. You can also take a cheap older lens and use it's mount to attach your lens. Look for generic extension tubes on ebay.
There are a couple really cheap AF macro lenses you can buy too, if your camera had an AF motor. =P Oh well....
Personally I find MF macro quite difficult, especially with a lens that has a short focus throw and is not designed for macro. You may want to simply consider buying a Nikon Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 AI lens.
Because the depth of field is so narrow with macro photography, you're going to want to look into a replacement focus screen as well(split prism etc). Manual focusing with a macro lens on a DSLR is a major pain unless you're stopping down to F16.
Hah! Yeah, I wish the body had a motor, but it isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Seriously.
I've yet to try true macro photography, so I don't know whether or not it is difficult to manually focus. I was always under the impression that AF was kind of useless, since all you'd need to do is back away 1mm, or move ahead 1mm to get your things in focus, since the DoF is so shallow.
This is actually the first time I've heard of interchangeable focus screens. I did a bit of research, but I am still a little confused as to what they do, and how they benefit various lens. I checked out my lens manual, and it has a list of recommended focus screens. I'm totally confused, now. What makes a focus screen better than another? How do some lens (in my case, a 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6 lens) benefit from certain focus screens?
Focus screen sits up above your mirror and you can see it when you open your camera. It does not have so much to do with different lens than with helping you manually focus better. I have an older film camera that has one of them and it is so much easier to manually focus with it.
There are different kinds and i am not very familiar myself, but imagine that you have AA in your viewfinder and all the edges are jagged. When you focus on something it becomes perfectly clear and sharp as the rest has those jagged edges. That kind of focusing screen is the prism. There are many different kinds and perhaps for macro there is something even better.
I wanted to get one of those when I needed longer and faster lens for my portraits, but did not have money for new lens so I was going to get older lens and use focus screen to help e focus. It turns out the once that are worth it are very expensive so i never got one.
One last thing to consider is - you have cropped body and the viewfinder is not very bright ( i guess) and it is also very small so this will make it even more difficult to focus manually.
You can try to manually focus without new focusing screen and see how you gonna like it.
Hah! Yeah, I wish the body had a motor, but it isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Seriously.
It really depends on what you're doing, I mean I've wrote pages and pages on the topic now, when you want to step up to better lenses, prime lenses, etc its going to be a major problem. If you just want to stick with the cheap AF-S zooms, its not really a big deal. For me it would be a massive problem.
Macro is another good example, there are probably about 10-20 AF macro primes for Nikon mount, but very few AF-S. But anyway, I mentioned it just as a joke/gentle ribbing... Mostly... =P
I've yet to try true macro photography, so I don't know whether or not it is difficult to manually focus. I was always under the impression that AF was kind of useless, since all you'd need to do is back away 1mm, or move ahead 1mm to get your things in focus, since the DoF is so shallow.
You can do this, but I mean, you might take 30 shots before you get a usable shot. MF macro work without a focus screen is extremely difficult, again especially with a lens not designed for macro, which only has a 90 degree or less focus throw, focusing will be very clunky.
There are some people who do a lot of MF macro work even with AF lenses, I think mostly because these people are simply accustomed to working like this. If you try doing MF macro work with lets say, a bee or another moving insect, you're going to have a very tough time with it. Manually focusing with a macro lens, on a tripod, with a static subject is much easier.
The 1mm forward/back is actually an argument FOR AF, not against it. If you think about it, lets say you dial in your focus just right, then move 3mm back just before you took the shot. Shit, your focus is off. Now you've gotta refocus or try to get back into that exact spot again. Its extremely time consuming.
On the other hand, if you have an AF macro lens, you take the shot as soon as the lens catches focus, if you happen to move in the spit second between focus confirm and the shutter firing, you just take the shot again.
AF in macro is far from without flaws though, the AF tends to be slow, loud and hunt back and forth to find focus as well as not work very well in poor lighting. This depends on the quality of the lens generally. I still prefer AF, or at the very least to have the option of AF on macro lenses.
Manual focusing macros can be an interesting challenge, and I'm sure you'll have fun experimenting with it and cheap options like macro tubes and reversing rings, but in the longer term depending on what you want to do with it, you'll probably find yourself looking for a more dedicated solution.
This is actually the first time I've heard of interchangeable focus screens. I did a bit of research, but I am still a little confused as to what they do, and how they benefit various lens. I checked out my lens manual, and it has a list of recommended focus screens. I'm totally confused, now. What makes a focus screen better than another? How do some lens (in my case, a 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6 lens) benefit from certain focus screens?
In addition to what Disanksi says, different focus screens are designed for different type of lenses, wide vs telephoto, slow vs fast. In your case you likely want to buy a cheap, Chinese made basic spit-prism screen, as you can find them for about $30. If you buy a proper Nikon brand screen, it will likely cost the same as a MF dedicated macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.
Oh, one last thing!!! With cheap AF-S lens, you do not have a proper aperture ring. This means when using cheap tubes, or using a reversing ring you will not be able to stop the lens down. This is a major issue, as a lens wide open doing macro is an EXTREMELY fine DOF. You probabbly want to be closer to the F5.6-8 range to get even a reasonably wide DOF, and F8-32 depending on exactly what you're doing.
Again an AI Nikkor Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 lens would be a much better choice here, if you have no interest in AF macros. You can actually buy AF macro tubes, and use your 50/1.8 as a macro lens with AF and everything, but those tubes cost about as much as a MF macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.
I agree entirely with what you've said in the past pages, actually! It makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just really happy with my current setup/lens. My current lens setup is :
-18-55mm F/3,5-5.6 (kit lens)
-50mm f/1.8
-70-300mm F/4.5-5.6
I'm pretty satisfied with what I have for now. Sure, a few cheap primes here and there would be nice, but I don't have that much cash to throw around, either, nor do I actually need more lenses.
But once again, I agree, AF bodies are nice. Very nice actually, and it's something that NEVER came to mind when purchasing my D5100. It's my first DSLR, and nobody ever mentioned it to me when I bought it, and it wasn't really mentioned much in reviews, either. I'll be sure to get an AF body when I upgrade someday.
Regardless, I have nothing but good things to say about the D5100, apart from the no in-body AF. :P
I was actually looking at close-up filters rather than extension tubes. I've been told that extension tubes have only marginally greater magnification when used with Telephoto lens. On the other hand, close-up filters provide a very big boost to magnification when used with a telephoto. I've really been wanting to try a close-up filter on my 70-300mm, not sure what to expect, though. There are lots of cheap filters on ebay, I'll give them a show.
Thanks a lot for all your macro advice! It's definitely something I want to try soon! I still have that amazing macro shot of yours in mind. (the one with the bee in the flower).
I actually really like the 50mm-85mm range for macro, IMO tubes+your 50 would work pretty well. With a longer lens it can be much harder to get a steady shot handheld, and the working distance is going to be pretty far. I used a 100mm macro for a while and I just felt like I had to be too far from the subject.
I used my Sigma 50 2.8, with a 1.7x TC(~85) on it for that bee shot, I really like the working distance there, and being able to shoot at 50mm too of course. I use live view generally with the tilty screen on m A560, makes it really easy to get up close without being a contortionist with your eye buried in the viewfinder.
The negative with close focus filters vs tubes is that they degrade IQ, esp when stacked, but they're cheap and fun to play with, so its not a big deal.
I actually really like the 50mm-85mm range for macro, IMO tubes+your 50 would work pretty well. With a longer lens it can be much harder to get a steady shot handheld, and the working distance is going to be pretty far. I used a 100mm macro for a while and I just felt like I had to be too far from the subject.
I used my Sigma 50 2.8, with a 1.7x TC(~85) on it for that bee shot, I really like the working distance there, and being able to shoot at 50mm too of course. I use live view generally with the tilty screen on m A560, makes it really easy to get up close without being a contortionist with your eye buried in the viewfinder.
The negative with close focus filters vs tubes is that they degrade IQ, esp when stacked, but they're cheap and fun to play with, so its not a big deal.
Hmm that's an interesting suggestion. The one issue I can see with using my 50mm f/1.8 (correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a TC sacrifices lens speed for magnification, right?), is that the minimum focusing distance is actually quite long. I can focus MUCH closer with my 18-55mm, but of course, it's nowhere nearly as fast, or sharp.
IIRC, the 50mm prime's minimum focusing distance is 0,45m, whereas the 18-55's is 0,28m.
A TC actually will help, but tubes will help even more. A TC wont actually increase the MFD, but it will give you a 2x(or 1.4, 1.7 etc) crop, so higher magnification. I use the TC with my Sigma 50/2.8, which does 1:1 macro reproduction, it can focus to just a couple inch. With even a short tube, you should be able to focus very close with your 50/1.8, and since a tube is literally just... a tube extending the lens out, there is no glass to reduce IQ like there is with a TC, or screw on filters.
Your kit will focus closer though, without any tubes or what-have-you. Generally for macro stuff people like sharp lenses, but I mean unless you're doing large prints, its likely not going to be a problem. I forget about the short MFD most kit zooms have, just because I never really use them. But the fact of the matter is that your 50mm/1.8 is really, REALLY sharp at about F4-5.6, and your kit only starts to get sharp around F8, and then softens up because of diffraction on APS-C.
However, with macro work, you might be stopping down past F8, at which point diffraction is going to be your biggest issue with either a cheap kit lens or a sharp prime. For instance, this shot was at F5 and really could have been stopped a bit more to get a bit deeper DOF, as it is the edges of his wings are a little too blury and the flower as well - of course that is subjective to the intent, but you get the idea.
The problem I see with extension tubes is that you lose the ability to autofocus. Does this apply to camera bodies that have AF motors in them as well?
The only ones I've seen that actually support AF are the Kenko extension tubes, and they're pretty darn expensive, comparatively to others you can find on ebay.
I have a question regarding filters in general. I am starting to have a wider variety of lenses (3 so far), and I'm looking into getting a polarizing filter and a grad filter as well. However, each and every one of my lenses have a different filter size. I was wondering if the best thing to do would be to get a 77mm filter since it's the largest filter size I can get for "normal" lenses (so to speak), and just get a step-up ring for each lense. I'm assuming this will prevent me from using lense hoods, right?
It's either that, or get 2-3 different filters for every single lense I have. Things will start to get out hand quickly enough. Who wants to carry 10+ filters around all the time? And lets face it, Circular polarizing filters aren't cheap.
Well, cheap filters are cheap! I have a $20 set of 77mm Vivitar UV/CPL/ND4 that are just fine. Would $50-100 filters be better? Probably, but would I notice the difference in real use? Probably not.
Step up rings are on option, but then you've gotta bring step up rings, or always have them installed on your lenses. If your base is 77mm, that is much wider than a lens that needs 49, 52, 55mm or so. So there is extra bulk you have to consider anyway, plus the annoyance of using them.
If you have a LOT of lenses, I would consider grouping similar filter threads, ie: 82-77-72, 67-62-58, 55-52-49 as the bulk of going from say 82 to 72 is much smaller than 49 to 77. With three lenses... its probably not worth the effort, just buy a few cheap filters.
Can anyone recommend a good waterproof/underwater/rugged use camera? Maybe one that's currently on the cheap? ;P
Honestly, there aren't any good ones at a sane price. I bought a 250$ under water camera for snorkeling and it started acting weird the first time I took it out. The guides said they have about ten backups and go through them all monthly.
The GoPro is the only real reliable camera and casing I've seen and used but it has very poor focusing quality under water. Everything will be blurry. Hopefully the newer models will have improved this problem.
What to look for in a tripod? Especially for stabilising while shooting video? What tripods would you guys recommend?
I have a cheap one, my only regret is the controls after its tightened up are pretty stiff/jerky and it handicaps the video. It's also very light and can shiver a little bit when it really shouldn't. The next one I get I'll definitely be testing it out to see how smooth the rotation is with the camera weight on it and locked in. I have a 5D2 and it's pretty cumbersome to manage on the crappy tripod.
Scoping legs are a must, they're really handy for unlevel surfaces and varying heights.
Honestly, there aren't any good ones at a sane price. I bought a 250$ under water camera for snorkeling and it started acting weird the first time I took it out. The guides said they have about ten backups and go through them all monthly.
The GoPro is the only real reliable camera and casing I've seen and used but it has very poor focusing quality under water. Everything will be blurry. Hopefully the newer models will have improved this problem.
What do you want out of your tripod?
Big, heavy and bulky for extra support?
Small, light and compact so its easy to take with you?
Budget? Tripods range from $30 to hundreds, even thousands.
You also might consider a monopod, if all you need is a bit of extra stability but still want some freedom of motion.
If you want to do a lot of pans and things like that, you might need a pretty good tripod head. I've always found it difficult to do a smooth pan in video with the few cheap tripods I have.
As far as underwater cameras go, really I think a lot of the cheaper consumer models are more "water proof" ie: for splashing around on the beach, not really depth proof for operating continuously under water. What you can get is an underwater enclosure for a DSLR, that would probably be the most reliable, but then you're out a couple hundred for the enclosure and $500+ for the DSLR, plus any additional lenses you might want. So it really depends on how serious you are and what exactly you're trying to do.
For less demanding work the camera you decided to go with is probably fine, it looks like its rated depth proof up to 12m? That sounds pretty good if it works.
Or, I was thinking of going with something like an old 50mm f:1.8, with an aperture ring. Have that reversed at the end of extension tubes.
Now, my main concern here is working distance. I plan on taking close up shots of insects, and moving critters. I'm unsure as to what the working distance on the latter option would be. I don't want something that requires me to be too close. That is where the first option really shines. It's got a 1:1 magnification ratio, and being 105mm, it gives you a good amount of working distance, which is perfect. I was hoping I could get something closer to 2:1, however. If I went with the dedicated macro lense, I'd probably need to get extension tubes to avoid losing IQ.
It's really a huge debate for me right now. I know the dedicated lense is quite expensive, ( from what I've seen, it's an incredible piece of glass) but I recently had someone buy a huge print from me, and offered to buy a new lense for me as payment. Essentially, the money is going towards a macro lense setup, since he'd love to see macro shots.
Anyone here have any experience with macro setups?
Id say if your main subject is gonna be insects or stuff that's likely to move if disturbed then the 105mm will serve you better rather than losing the shot with the 50mm because you have to get up closer.
Although if you have a cropped sensor, you'll gain a little reach from that.
Or, I was thinking of going with something like an old 50mm f:1.8, with an aperture ring. Have that reversed at the end of extension tubes.
Now, my main concern here is working distance. I plan on taking close up shots of insects, and moving critters. I'm unsure as to what the working distance on the latter option would be. I don't want something that requires me to be too close. That is where the first option really shines. It's got a 1:1 magnification ratio, and being 105mm, it gives you a good amount of working distance, which is perfect. I was hoping I could get something closer to 2:1, however. If I went with the dedicated macro lense, I'd probably need to get extension tubes to avoid losing IQ.
It's really a huge debate for me right now. I know the dedicated lense is quite expensive, ( from what I've seen, it's an incredible piece of glass) but I recently had someone buy a huge print from me, and offered to buy a new lense for me as payment. Essentially, the money is going towards a macro lense setup, since he'd love to see macro shots.
Anyone here have any experience with macro setups?
Thanks in advance!
If you're doing insects I wouldn't bother with a reversed lens + tubes, its going to be pretty slow to work like that and the working distance won't be enough.
90-105mm is a good working distance I would say.
Jumping straight to the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR isn't a particularly good idea, that's basically the most expensive lens in that range in your system.
If you're willing to go used you have a lot of options:
Under $600
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG OS - closest to the Nikon VR
Under $400
Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AF "D"(I think its a D, the older version regardless)
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG
Under $300:
Tamron 90mm 2.9 AF Di
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX
Under $200 - I think these are all only 1:2 though, so beware. Usually they come with a close up lens to get 1:1
Tamron 90mm 2.8 AF SP
Sigma 90mm 2.8
"Plastic fantastic" Vivitar/Promaster/Cosina/etc 90mm 3.5. This lens has horrible build and slow/super loud af, but optically its awesome. You might find one under $100 even.
New the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di is only $450 on adorama. The Sigma EX DG OS is about $700-750. Would I pay $750 for the Sigma when the Nikon is $900? No, but I would look really hard at those used lenses in the $200-400 range.
Now as far as 2:1 or greater than 1:1 in general, you're going to have to pick up some extension tubes or a dioptic/close up filter. You can get a set of generic AF tubes for probably $100. Something like a Nikon PK-13 MF tube for $30. AF at over 1:1 will be pretty much useless anyway, so a MF tube is good idea.
Also keep in mind a lot of these lenses will be screw drive, I don't know which Nikon body you have, but if you have a lower end body without the AF motor these will only be MF lenses. In which case Nikon made a lot of nice MF macros that you can get for cheap as well, and will probably be easier to use if fulltime MF is something you want to do(MF lenses always feel a bit better than AF lenses).
Edit: As far as a portrait lens, well, here is the thing. While they are often similar focal lengths they are usually designed with completely different objectives.
A. Portrait lenses are fast(usually 1.4 or 1.8 ), should focus quickly(though don't tell that to the EF 85/1.2L) are soft wide open except in the center, have nice bokeh, etc.
B. Macro lenses are slow(2.8 and slower), usually very sharp even wide open, perhaps "too sharp" for portrait work, designed to be sharp across the frame for reproduction work, slow to focus, etc.
So you CAN use a macro lens for a portrait lens, sure, its just not going to be ideal. Though something like the Tamron 60mm 2.0 macro may be a decent compromise. 90-105mm is pretty long for portraits on APS-C.
Also if you go for an af macro and want to use it as more of a general purpose lens, make sure to get one with a focus limiter.
I figured as much. Now here's the thing.
The nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR is actually cheaper than the Sigma equivalent at my local shop (835$ for the Nikkor vs 875$).
The issue with the other, less expensive counterparts, is the fact that they all extend when focusing. No internal focus, which may be an issue. It also causes problems if ever I wish to get a lens-mounted ring flash, I'd assume.
I will definitely look at the other cheaper alternatives you listed, though I have always been skeptical about buying old, used glass, especially when I'm putting in 300+$ into it. I've yet to see any negative reviews about Nikons 105mm.
I am not concerned about AF ability at such high magnification, especially if I'm going to attempt 2:1.
Ok, now I'm beginning to sound like I have already made up my mind about the 105mm, but I can assure you that isn't the case.
The reason why I was considering a cheaper lense setup, is because it would allow me to put some money into a decent macro flash. Which is why I even considered a wider prime + tubes in the first place.
About portrait lenses, is there really such thing as "too sharp"? I've read about people saying that, but how exactly can that be a problem? It is very, very easy to soften an image in post, rather than having to sharpen it, no?
Isn't the famous 70-200mm f/2.8 often used for portraits because of its stunning sharpness?
Oh, and as for the tubes, I agree about getting MF tubes, but won't you lose the control you have over your aperture?
I figured as much. Now here's the thing.
The nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR is actually cheaper than the Sigma equivalent at my local shop (835$ for the Nikkor vs 875$).
The issue with the other, less expensive counterparts, is the fact that they all extend when focusing. No internal focus, which may be an issue. It also causes problems if ever I wish to get a lens-mounted ring flash, I'd assume.
Most macros extend when focusing, shouldn't really be an issue. The Tamron 60/2.0 is an IF design though. Ring flashes tend to have a stretchy cord thing. People have been using non-IF macros for decades so, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I will definitely look at the other cheaper alternatives you listed, though I have always been skeptical about buying old, used glass, especially when I'm putting in 300+$ into it. I've yet to see any negative reviews about Nikons 105mm.
I am not concerned about AF ability at such high magnification, especially if I'm going to attempt 2:1.
I have 2+ thousand dollars in AF lenses currently, and only one was purchased new(sigma 50/1.4, wanted the warranty and used prices barely save you anything). Some of my lenses are over 25 years old. Lenses generally last a long, long time. Buy from KEH if you're worried about getting a "bad" one, they have a nice return policy, or buy from eBay sellers that accept returns for any reason(will be a little harder to find).
Is a used lens fractionally more likely to fail? Sure, but is it really a significant concern? I don't think so, any lens can fail at any time for any number of reasons. If you buy a new $900 lens instead of a used $300 lens, what are you really doing? You could buy 3 $300 lenses in the extremely unlikely case that the first two break and still break even. After you warranty
Ok, now I'm beginning to sound like I have already made up my mind about the 105mm, but I can assure you that isn't the case.
The reason why I was considering a cheaper lense setup, is because it would allow me to put some money into a decent macro flash. Which is why I even considered a wider prime + tubes in the first place.
Another reason not to splurge on the most expensive lens in its class. Look, buying the top-end lens in a certain class before you really know why you need it over the lower end models is just silly. Its like buying a D3x/D800/etc because you "want to get into photography". Buy something more reasonable, sell it in the future if you find some reason that you need the 2-3x more expensive lens. Used lenses tend to hold their value very well, and actually go up in value with inflation generally. I'm sure the Nikon 105mm VR is a great lens, the thing is, so are a lot of the other options.
About portrait lenses, is there really such thing as "too sharp"? I've read about people saying that, but how exactly can that be a problem? It is very, very easy to soften an image in post, rather than having to sharpen it, no?
Isn't the famous 70-200mm f/2.8 often used for portraits because of its stunning sharpness?
Too sharp is getting subjective, I won't really try to persuade you either way there, better just to try it yourself and see. Generally optics is all about compromise, sharpness at all cost vs bokeh etc.
Oh, and as for the tubes, I agree about getting MF tubes, but won't you lose the control you have over your aperture?
Yes, luckily many nikon and 3rd party nikon lenses have proper aperture rings, newer nikon "G" glass doesn't though.
Oh looking at it, the 105 VR is screw drive AF too, thats really lame if you've got a low end body. Even if you don't need af at 2:1, you will want it at 1:2-infinity. Especially if you want to use it as a portrait lens(unless you're taking photos of statues that is). So if you've got a low end body, instead of spending $900 on a lens, put that money toward a body that will open up the whole nikon AF lens collection.
You make many valid arguments, and have given me much to consider. This is exactly why I came to post here.
By the way, you are probably looking at the wrong 105mm. The old version. The new version is AF-S (105mm f/2.8 VR), meaning it focuses with all Nikon bodies, low, or high end.
What can you tell me about flash setups? There's so many different types, I'm honestly a little bit overwhelmed. I don't plan on spending the big bucks anytime soon, not until I feel confident in the research I've done.
You make many valid arguments, and have given me much to consider. This is exactly why I came to post here.
By the way, you are probably looking at the wrong 105mm. The old version. The new version is AF-S (105mm f/2.8 VR), meaning it focuses with all Nikon bodies, low, or high end.
Yep, you're right, the latest is AF-S. Which makes a compelling agrument for simply buying it instead of a new body/cheaper lens combo. Though you might find yourself in the same situation the next time you're looking to buy a specialty lens, so still something to consider for the long term.
Though there are still huge gaps in Nikon's lineup that aren't AF-S, they have been doing a good job of coming out with new AF-S lenses recently, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case going forward.
What can you tell me about flash setups? There's so many different types, I'm honestly a little bit overwhelmed. I don't plan on spending the big bucks anytime soon, not until I feel confident in the research I've done.
Replies
Honestly I would probably lean more towards the Nex/M43 side of it, as these are "purse-able" and the lenses are small enough to easily carry too.
Thanks for the help guys.
I also want Nikon or Canon, either is fine.
So, if you don't mind taking a sec, what would you buy for that budget? To give you an idea of UK prices, here's my local camera store, Amazon is also cheaper on some cameras.
http://www.jessops.com
Nah, no video, just stills.
Would that last me? I know my budget isn't huge but if I could get a body that won't need upgrading for a long while thatd be awesome, then I can focus all future money on glass without feeling like the body is inadequate after a little while.
Only thing is it doesn't leave me any cash for a 50mm so I'd be stuck with the freebie zoom.
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77763/Show.html?tduid=0a1b56e7f0b7e2604a2c3e021b4f3d14&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77763/Show.html
Sony A560
Quantaray 24mm 2.8
Sony 35mm 1.8
Minolta 50mm 1.4 - Got for a bargain, seller didn't not weather it was the 1.4 or 1.7 version, paid about $50.... Usually sells for $2-300.
Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro
Minolta 100-200mm 4.5
Minolta 70-200mm 4.0 beercan
I bought a used A560, and what I got was an essentially new one in box with everything. Someone must have taken a few shots and returned it. It did have a front-focusing issue that I was really bummed about at first, but after doing some research, there are a few set screws that are easy to adjust. Now I've got my focus tailored to my 50/1.4 at 1.4, and it is quite sharp. I contemplated sending it off to sony, as I believe this camera is even under warranty, but the focus calibration was super easy to do, and isn't invasive/warranty voiding.
Stuff I like:
Build Quality/Ergonomics, very comfortable and feels quite solid. It would be better if it was a 2-wheel style body, but all in all a big improvement.
Good controls and interface, I think I would be a little more happy with a Canon, but the transition was pretty seamless.
Very fast shooting
Af accuracy and speed, super fast phase-detect AF in live view, makes live view... actuially worth using! Focuses in almost no light. LV/FCLV can be used to great effect to manual focus in almost total darkness.
Very good high ISO performance. ISO 100-1600 is great, set auto ISO up to 1600 and never worry about noise. 3200 is good, 6400 is usable, 12800 usable re-sized pretty small. Multi-frame noise reduction is like magic, JPEG only, but you can get very very little noise with ISO 6400, and usable ISO 25600 with MFNR. Just nuts.
This is ISO 25600, 50mm 1.4 at 4.5 MFNR gives an ok result. Much better than not getting the shot. Underexposed so the noise is quite high.
Now, properly exposed, noise levels are much better! Very impressive, hand held shooting indoors at 4.5 with extremely little light.
In body IS/SSS is a huge advantage, every lens is an IS lens. This is something that you'll just never get with a Nikon/Canon, IS primes! This also is very usefull with video work. Try video hand held with a 50/1.8 or longer on a Canon system without IS, will likely be vomit-inducing. =P
Tilt-able, super high res LCD screen, very nice, mostly usable in bright sunny light. This camera can conceivable be used in LV mode exclusively if you wanted to, it is that well integrated(AF, LCD, etc). I still use the OVF when I want to be sure I get a shot, but the LV/nice screen opens up a lot more room to get creative with your shooting style.
Excellent selection of high quality, cheap-as-hell Minolta prime glass, no slouch when compared to Canon/Nikon glass either. The Minolta 50/1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses out there. Plenty of Sony/Zeiss/3rd party lenses if you need them
Video mode is fun
What I dont like:
Limited buffer(580 is supposedly better), not often a problem
Would like to be able to customize controls a little more, I dont need a D-Range button, I would rather bind that to something more useful.
Proprietary flash shoe, had to buy a $10 adaptor to use my old bounce flash
Video mode not the best, no manual controls(however you can shoot in A/S with exposure compensation) and no AF during video mode makes it a bit quirky to use.
One worry is that it looks like Sony is dropping optical viewfinders in the future, which I'm not sure that i'm excited about. Especially since the A33/A55 have compatability issues with some of the older Sigma/Quant lenses(that generally work fine on the rest of the Alpha lineup). We'll see how the A65/A77 goes though, maybe its not that big of a deal.
Overall extremely pleased with an affordable highly productive body and a new selection of small, light weight and cheap primes.
EQ, Have you had a chance to test the 35mm 1.8, been thinking about picking this up, always praised in the review tests for being a stellar performer for the price.
Still i would love to see some UWE primes for the APS-C Sony bodies, been looking at the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 and it's hard to justify there price when i'm only gonna be using the lowest focal length.
Yeah the sigma/quantaray lenses I have(24/2.8 and 50/2.8 macro) are 15-25 years old most likely. So likely too old/not worth it to rechip. Anyway I got them for cheap, and can resell to someone using an AXXX camera which they are fully compatible with to fund a newer AXX lens when the time comes. The Minolta 24/2.8 isn't thattttt expensive if it comes down to it.
I do have and love the 35mm 1.8. Its $150 on amazon, go buy it. No seriously, go buy the damned thing right now. Its a dirt cheap, fast and sharp ~50mm normal prime lens, light weight and not the worst build quality in the world(Slightly better than Canon 50mm 1.8, but worse than Maxxum lenses). The only reason not to get the 35/1.8 is if you're rich and love to blow your money on shit you don't need, then go get the 35/1.4 instead =P. Very sharp even at 1.8, there are few reasons not to have this lens(I can't think of any).
I'm in the market for something covering the 12-16mm (~18-24mm) range as well, options are pretty limited under $400. The older Sigma 10-20mm might be had for a little less than $300. I'm keeping an eye on these waiting to find a deal, I'd like something in the $250 range but it seems a bit unrealistic, just going to have to be patient.
Thanks in advance!
The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent choice for basically anyone and should be a no-brainer. enjoy!
I'd have to check other brands. This is the one I was interested in:
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213463000
But I'll take your word for it, a 50mm 1.8 it is!
Get it and all you have to worry about is getting up near the front line if you want to grab few close up shots.
Just last weekend I was using mine 50mm, 1.8 canon lens and i was even able to grab some shots of the crowd farther away from the stage and all the lights.
One thing that sucks is if the light is poor even 1.8 and a high ISO is not going to help.
If you have any flashes and obviously you know the people you might set few of them on a different locations on the stage and then you will have no problems at all
Good luck and show us some images please
Edit: I forgot now how was it for your body but I am afraid you dont have focus motor in your body (just check to make sure). I also dont remebr and dont have time to check now but I believe there was no Auto Focus motor in the lens neither which means AF is not going to work for you. As I said just double check for this and if that is the case decide if no AF is ok for you. If it is not working for you You could go to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 ..... if you have the money.
Actually, the 50mm 1.8 I plan on getting does have AF-S. Which is fully supported by my body! So it's all good! I'll be sure to post pictures when I take them!
Thanks for the help, guys!
The Nikon 35/1.8 is also a really good lens to consider, I would personally recommend having both, as the 50mm may be too tight for some instances. Really the 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are so cheap its just silly not to buy them.
For zooms, you have to remember that where a 50mm ~75mm equiv lens need a min of 1/75th second to get a sharp shot, a 200mm lens needs 1/200th to get a sharp shot. You couple that with a slower zoom, and you're looking at the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 25600 or something. Just basically unusable. Nikon has only like 1 fast zoom that is also AF-S as well, so you really don't have any real options for low light tele zooms on Nikon. You would have to look at third party lenses, like Tamron, Sigma etc.
Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 ~500-800
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX ~500-800
Also:
Sigma 85mm 1.4 AFS ~1000, Cheap when you look at the Nikon 85mm 1.4 AFS(~1700).
My real advice here, would be go with a Camera system that has access to fast, relatively affordable primes. If you want to do low light shooting often, your best route is fast primes, and you can only get a few fast primes in Nikon AFS. This would mean upgrading to a mid-range Nikon body, a Canon body, or a Sony body. Then you'll have much better options like:
Nikon 85mm 1.8 ~350
Canon 85mm 1.8 ~350
Canon 100mm 2.0 ~350
Minolta 85mm 1.4 ~600 (Sony)
Minolta 135mm 2.8 ~350 (Sony)
Sony 85mm 2.8 ~200
I personally would pick something like the Minolta 50/1.7 + Sony 85mm 2.8 + Minolta 135mm 2.8 +1.7/2x teleconverter before I would take a ~600ish 2.8 third party zoom lens.
Sony also has in-body image stabilization, which helps a great deal with low light shooting, but you'll never get IS with a prime lens on Canon or Nikon. It wont help with moving objects at low shutter speeds, but it does combat camera shake a significant amount, which allows you to do some fun stuff with low shutter speeds and moving subjects, like getting nice motion blur on your subject, but also getting the static environment in sharp focus.
Regardless of all that, the Nikon 50mm/1.8 AFS is an excellent, cheap lens that you will have a lot of fun with, and might suit your needs just fine. However, if you feel you're in need of more than that down the road, re-read the above^^. =D
Another very affordable option would be to get a cheap 1.7x teleconverter, this will convert your 50mm 1.8 lens to a ~85mm 2.8 lens. This should be suitable enough for low light, and provide the sort of reach you would want for a concert. I picked up a Tamron 1.7x TC for next to nothing, but you should be able to find one for about $100 or less. Or a 2x, for a 100mm/3.5 equiv lens. The worst thing about TC's in they can degrade IQ a bit, and the light loss, personally to me, I find the IQ on my Tamron(actually its a promaster, re-branded) 1.7x is completely acceptable, and provides a better alternative to simply cropping the image in post. This is the one I have: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Promaster-1-7x-AF-Teleconverter-Nikon-Nikkor-NIB-/220833240726?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336aafd696#ht_537wt_1185 Unfortunately i'm not sure if it is compatible with AF-S lenses.
If the venue has reasonable ceilings, IE: not a concert hall with 5 story ceilings, you can pick up a cheap bounce flash, bounce it off the ceiling for ambient light and use pretty much any lens you feel like. If you're in some regular old bar or something, this may be an option.
I do not plan on changing my camera any time soon. I just got it a few months back. While it *is* really unfortunate that the body doesn't have an autofocus motor, the camera itself really compensates. The sensor is absolutely incredible, and I've been truly satisfied with it so far. Like I mentioned above, I'm really into landscape and wildlife photography, so I don't think I'll have a need for a wide-range of primes. I'm almost always outdoors when there is plenty of light to see by, so a decent Telephoto zoom will do the job just fine. I just figured that with the concert coming up, I could use a prime in my collection. Boy am I glad I did, though!
I just went out and bought the Nikkor AF-S 50mm F/1.8. And all I have to say is... holy crap.
When I read all about you guys praising the Prime lens like some kind of god, I thought you were over-hyping up a little too much. But after using the D5100's kit lens (18-55mm, F/3.5-5.6) for about 3-4 months, and moving on to a really nice prime, the difference is astonishing. I was mindblown at how much clearer, sharper, and faster this prime is compared to my other kit lens. It doesn't even begin to compare. While my kit lens does perform better when I want to do close-ups, as well as landscape shots, the Prime lens blows it out of the water for just about anything else.
I now understand what the praise was all about.
Once again, thanks for the help, everyone! Very much appreciated!
16mm
18mm
20mm
24mm
28mm
That you can get for Canon/Sony but not for low end Nikon, just sucks. Where these lenses hit their prime in the 4.0-5.6 range, the AFS cheap zooms for Nikon start there, and need to be stopped down to F8 to get any sharpness. If you're shooting wide sunsets shots or something, this means cranking up the ISO another 2 stops, further reducing image quality.
I would try to keep an open mind about your camera body. People like to get really hardcore into a certain brand or specific body, and its a bit irrational. Unless you've got $2000+ tied up in lenses, it is actually very easy to switch systems, and Nikon, Canon and Sony body's of the same class/year will provide virtually identical image quality. If you ever go down that road, where you think you need to buy a very expensive 2.8 zoom because Nikon doesn't offer any primes you can use, you'll likely be better served just switching bodies(again even to a mid-range Nikon body).
I mean, I switched from a Canon to Sony system, and it took me about a week to sell all my gear, and buy the new gear. And that was body + $1250 in lenses.
Now, enough ranting. Here are some suggestions for higher quality lenses than your kit lens that fit your type of shooting and may pair better with your 50 as far as IQ goes.
Ultra Wide for landscapes:
Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5 ~400-500
Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 ~300-500
Tokina 12-24mm 4.0 ~300-500
Fast standard zoom:
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ~300-400
Tele zoom
Nikon 70-300mm VR 4-5.6 $250-400
Nikon 55-200mm VR 4-5.6 $150-250
Nikon 55-300mm VR 4.5-5.6 $300-350
So you have some options in the under $500 range.
You might be able to find a Used 60D body for around the same cost as a new 550D body, maybe just a little more. This will give you the extra control wheel and more "pro" feel. I don't think you should buy a 7D unless there is some really specific reason you need one. I personally wouldn't spend that much money on a camera if it wasn't making any money from using it.
The 7d has the ultra high end features like environment seals and really sturdy construction, that you would likely never need unless you were a professional photographer.
Now having said all that, the 550D in itself is an excellent camera, and a massive upgrade over your 350D. Go to the store and try one out, if it feels good in your hands, buy it! Its the same sensor so there really is no difference in IQ between the three. Its just a matter of how it feels, and how you need it to perform. I like the feel of the 550D much better than the 350D too, I didn't think I would want one until I felt it in my hands.
The 7D is also quite heavy, the 550D is a bit light, the 60D is a pretty good weight. Some people "complain" that the 60D doesn't have a place between the 550D and 7D, but I think there is plenty of room between the low-end ergonomics of the 550D, and the high end price of the 7D. In this regard, the 60D fits in very well.
Looking at prices, you can get a used 60D body for $750-950, which is a bargain compared to a new 550D.
What specifically are you worried about with the quality of the 550D? Really I would go for the cheapest body that fits your needs, and spend the rest on glass. Lenses lenses lenses - its where the money should go.
Personally I find MF macro quite difficult, especially with a lens that has a short focus throw and is not designed for macro. You may want to simply consider buying a Nikon Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 AI lens.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-NIKKOR-55mm-1-3-5-997733-Camera-Lens-/400194656286?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5d2d75d81e
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Micro-Nikkor-55mm-f-2-8-AIS-enlargin-filters-/260857377729?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3cbc4fb3c1
Because the depth of field is so narrow with macro photography, you're going to want to look into a replacement focus screen as well(split prism etc). Manual focusing with a macro lens on a DSLR is a major pain unless you're stopping down to F16.
$10 for a 52mm Nikon F mount reversing adaptor though: http://www.ebay.com/itm/52mm-Lens-Reverse-Mount-Macro-Adapter-4-Nikon-D100-D200-/380352720005?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item588ec9ec85
I've yet to try true macro photography, so I don't know whether or not it is difficult to manually focus. I was always under the impression that AF was kind of useless, since all you'd need to do is back away 1mm, or move ahead 1mm to get your things in focus, since the DoF is so shallow.
This is actually the first time I've heard of interchangeable focus screens. I did a bit of research, but I am still a little confused as to what they do, and how they benefit various lens. I checked out my lens manual, and it has a list of recommended focus screens. I'm totally confused, now. What makes a focus screen better than another? How do some lens (in my case, a 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6 lens) benefit from certain focus screens?
There are different kinds and i am not very familiar myself, but imagine that you have AA in your viewfinder and all the edges are jagged. When you focus on something it becomes perfectly clear and sharp as the rest has those jagged edges. That kind of focusing screen is the prism. There are many different kinds and perhaps for macro there is something even better.
I wanted to get one of those when I needed longer and faster lens for my portraits, but did not have money for new lens so I was going to get older lens and use focus screen to help e focus. It turns out the once that are worth it are very expensive
One last thing to consider is - you have cropped body and the viewfinder is not very bright ( i guess) and it is also very small so this will make it even more difficult to focus manually.
You can try to manually focus without new focusing screen and see how you gonna like it.
It really depends on what you're doing, I mean I've wrote pages and pages on the topic now, when you want to step up to better lenses, prime lenses, etc its going to be a major problem. If you just want to stick with the cheap AF-S zooms, its not really a big deal. For me it would be a massive problem.
Macro is another good example, there are probably about 10-20 AF macro primes for Nikon mount, but very few AF-S. But anyway, I mentioned it just as a joke/gentle ribbing... Mostly... =P
You can do this, but I mean, you might take 30 shots before you get a usable shot. MF macro work without a focus screen is extremely difficult, again especially with a lens not designed for macro, which only has a 90 degree or less focus throw, focusing will be very clunky.
There are some people who do a lot of MF macro work even with AF lenses, I think mostly because these people are simply accustomed to working like this. If you try doing MF macro work with lets say, a bee or another moving insect, you're going to have a very tough time with it. Manually focusing with a macro lens, on a tripod, with a static subject is much easier.
The 1mm forward/back is actually an argument FOR AF, not against it. If you think about it, lets say you dial in your focus just right, then move 3mm back just before you took the shot. Shit, your focus is off. Now you've gotta refocus or try to get back into that exact spot again. Its extremely time consuming.
On the other hand, if you have an AF macro lens, you take the shot as soon as the lens catches focus, if you happen to move in the spit second between focus confirm and the shutter firing, you just take the shot again.
AF in macro is far from without flaws though, the AF tends to be slow, loud and hunt back and forth to find focus as well as not work very well in poor lighting. This depends on the quality of the lens generally. I still prefer AF, or at the very least to have the option of AF on macro lenses.
Manual focusing macros can be an interesting challenge, and I'm sure you'll have fun experimenting with it and cheap options like macro tubes and reversing rings, but in the longer term depending on what you want to do with it, you'll probably find yourself looking for a more dedicated solution.
In addition to what Disanksi says, different focus screens are designed for different type of lenses, wide vs telephoto, slow vs fast. In your case you likely want to buy a cheap, Chinese made basic spit-prism screen, as you can find them for about $30. If you buy a proper Nikon brand screen, it will likely cost the same as a MF dedicated macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.
Oh, one last thing!!! With cheap AF-S lens, you do not have a proper aperture ring. This means when using cheap tubes, or using a reversing ring you will not be able to stop the lens down. This is a major issue, as a lens wide open doing macro is an EXTREMELY fine DOF. You probabbly want to be closer to the F5.6-8 range to get even a reasonably wide DOF, and F8-32 depending on exactly what you're doing.
Again an AI Nikkor Micro 55mm 2.8/3.5 lens would be a much better choice here, if you have no interest in AF macros. You can actually buy AF macro tubes, and use your 50/1.8 as a macro lens with AF and everything, but those tubes cost about as much as a MF macro lens or a cheap AF macro lens.
[edit] These are actually fairly cheap: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-NIKON-AF-AF-S-L8E-/230673049065?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b52f65e9
us seller: http://www.ebay.com/itm/AF-Macro-Extension-Tubes-Nikon-D3-D3S-D3X-D90-NEW-/300549900503?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45fa2b88d7
-18-55mm F/3,5-5.6 (kit lens)
-50mm f/1.8
-70-300mm F/4.5-5.6
I'm pretty satisfied with what I have for now. Sure, a few cheap primes here and there would be nice, but I don't have that much cash to throw around, either, nor do I actually need more lenses.
But once again, I agree, AF bodies are nice. Very nice actually, and it's something that NEVER came to mind when purchasing my D5100. It's my first DSLR, and nobody ever mentioned it to me when I bought it, and it wasn't really mentioned much in reviews, either. I'll be sure to get an AF body when I upgrade someday.
Regardless, I have nothing but good things to say about the D5100, apart from the no in-body AF. :P
I was actually looking at close-up filters rather than extension tubes. I've been told that extension tubes have only marginally greater magnification when used with Telephoto lens. On the other hand, close-up filters provide a very big boost to magnification when used with a telephoto. I've really been wanting to try a close-up filter on my 70-300mm, not sure what to expect, though. There are lots of cheap filters on ebay, I'll give them a show.
Thanks a lot for all your macro advice! It's definitely something I want to try soon! I still have that amazing macro shot of yours in mind. (the one with the bee in the flower).
I used my Sigma 50 2.8, with a 1.7x TC(~85) on it for that bee shot, I really like the working distance there, and being able to shoot at 50mm too of course. I use live view generally with the tilty screen on m A560, makes it really easy to get up close without being a contortionist with your eye buried in the viewfinder.
The negative with close focus filters vs tubes is that they degrade IQ, esp when stacked, but they're cheap and fun to play with, so its not a big deal.
Hmm that's an interesting suggestion. The one issue I can see with using my 50mm f/1.8 (correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a TC sacrifices lens speed for magnification, right?), is that the minimum focusing distance is actually quite long. I can focus MUCH closer with my 18-55mm, but of course, it's nowhere nearly as fast, or sharp.
IIRC, the 50mm prime's minimum focusing distance is 0,45m, whereas the 18-55's is 0,28m.
Will a TC help out with this a lot?
Your kit will focus closer though, without any tubes or what-have-you. Generally for macro stuff people like sharp lenses, but I mean unless you're doing large prints, its likely not going to be a problem. I forget about the short MFD most kit zooms have, just because I never really use them. But the fact of the matter is that your 50mm/1.8 is really, REALLY sharp at about F4-5.6, and your kit only starts to get sharp around F8, and then softens up because of diffraction on APS-C.
However, with macro work, you might be stopping down past F8, at which point diffraction is going to be your biggest issue with either a cheap kit lens or a sharp prime. For instance, this shot was at F5 and really could have been stopped a bit more to get a bit deeper DOF, as it is the edges of his wings are a little too blury and the flower as well - of course that is subjective to the intent, but you get the idea.
The only ones I've seen that actually support AF are the Kenko extension tubes, and they're pretty darn expensive, comparatively to others you can find on ebay.
It's either that, or get 2-3 different filters for every single lense I have. Things will start to get out hand quickly enough. Who wants to carry 10+ filters around all the time? And lets face it, Circular polarizing filters aren't cheap.
Step up rings are on option, but then you've gotta bring step up rings, or always have them installed on your lenses. If your base is 77mm, that is much wider than a lens that needs 49, 52, 55mm or so. So there is extra bulk you have to consider anyway, plus the annoyance of using them.
If you have a LOT of lenses, I would consider grouping similar filter threads, ie: 82-77-72, 67-62-58, 55-52-49 as the bulk of going from say 82 to 72 is much smaller than 49 to 77. With three lenses... its probably not worth the effort, just buy a few cheap filters.
Honestly, there aren't any good ones at a sane price. I bought a 250$ under water camera for snorkeling and it started acting weird the first time I took it out. The guides said they have about ten backups and go through them all monthly.
The GoPro is the only real reliable camera and casing I've seen and used but it has very poor focusing quality under water. Everything will be blurry. Hopefully the newer models will have improved this problem.
I have a cheap one, my only regret is the controls after its tightened up are pretty stiff/jerky and it handicaps the video. It's also very light and can shiver a little bit when it really shouldn't. The next one I get I'll definitely be testing it out to see how smooth the rotation is with the camera weight on it and locked in. I have a 5D2 and it's pretty cumbersome to manage on the crappy tripod.
Scoping legs are a must, they're really handy for unlevel surfaces and varying heights.
I went with this one in the end;
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Waterproof-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00728ZC1A/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1345642670&sr=1-1&keywords=Panasonic+Lumix+TS4+12.1+TOUGH+Waterproof+Digital+Camera+with+4.6x+Optical+Zoom"]Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix TS4 12.1 TOUGH Waterproof Digital Camera with 4.6x Optical Zoom (Orange): Electronics[/ame]
Hopefully it works as advertised. Any tripod recommendations you guys have would be welcome!
Big, heavy and bulky for extra support?
Small, light and compact so its easy to take with you?
Budget? Tripods range from $30 to hundreds, even thousands.
You also might consider a monopod, if all you need is a bit of extra stability but still want some freedom of motion.
If you want to do a lot of pans and things like that, you might need a pretty good tripod head. I've always found it difficult to do a smooth pan in video with the few cheap tripods I have.
As far as underwater cameras go, really I think a lot of the cheaper consumer models are more "water proof" ie: for splashing around on the beach, not really depth proof for operating continuously under water. What you can get is an underwater enclosure for a DSLR, that would probably be the most reliable, but then you're out a couple hundred for the enclosure and $500+ for the DSLR, plus any additional lenses you might want. So it really depends on how serious you are and what exactly you're trying to do.
For less demanding work the camera you decided to go with is probably fine, it looks like its rated depth proof up to 12m? That sounds pretty good if it works.
Getting a great dedicated macro lense, which works absolutely great as a portrait lense as well: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2160/AF-S-VR-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html
(after checking reviews, the IQ is just as good, if not better than the 70-200mm 2.8, as it's a very high quality prime lense)
Or, I was thinking of going with something like an old 50mm f:1.8, with an aperture ring. Have that reversed at the end of extension tubes.
Now, my main concern here is working distance. I plan on taking close up shots of insects, and moving critters. I'm unsure as to what the working distance on the latter option would be. I don't want something that requires me to be too close. That is where the first option really shines. It's got a 1:1 magnification ratio, and being 105mm, it gives you a good amount of working distance, which is perfect. I was hoping I could get something closer to 2:1, however. If I went with the dedicated macro lense, I'd probably need to get extension tubes to avoid losing IQ.
It's really a huge debate for me right now. I know the dedicated lense is quite expensive, ( from what I've seen, it's an incredible piece of glass) but I recently had someone buy a huge print from me, and offered to buy a new lense for me as payment. Essentially, the money is going towards a macro lense setup, since he'd love to see macro shots.
Anyone here have any experience with macro setups?
Thanks in advance!
Although if you have a cropped sensor, you'll gain a little reach from that.
If you're doing insects I wouldn't bother with a reversed lens + tubes, its going to be pretty slow to work like that and the working distance won't be enough.
90-105mm is a good working distance I would say.
Jumping straight to the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR isn't a particularly good idea, that's basically the most expensive lens in that range in your system.
If you're willing to go used you have a lot of options:
Under $600
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG OS - closest to the Nikon VR
Under $400
Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AF "D"(I think its a D, the older version regardless)
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG
Under $300:
Tamron 90mm 2.9 AF Di
Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX
Under $200 - I think these are all only 1:2 though, so beware. Usually they come with a close up lens to get 1:1
Tamron 90mm 2.8 AF SP
Sigma 90mm 2.8
"Plastic fantastic" Vivitar/Promaster/Cosina/etc 90mm 3.5. This lens has horrible build and slow/super loud af, but optically its awesome. You might find one under $100 even.
New the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di is only $450 on adorama. The Sigma EX DG OS is about $700-750. Would I pay $750 for the Sigma when the Nikon is $900? No, but I would look really hard at those used lenses in the $200-400 range.
Now as far as 2:1 or greater than 1:1 in general, you're going to have to pick up some extension tubes or a dioptic/close up filter. You can get a set of generic AF tubes for probably $100. Something like a Nikon PK-13 MF tube for $30. AF at over 1:1 will be pretty much useless anyway, so a MF tube is good idea.
Also keep in mind a lot of these lenses will be screw drive, I don't know which Nikon body you have, but if you have a lower end body without the AF motor these will only be MF lenses. In which case Nikon made a lot of nice MF macros that you can get for cheap as well, and will probably be easier to use if fulltime MF is something you want to do(MF lenses always feel a bit better than AF lenses).
Edit: As far as a portrait lens, well, here is the thing. While they are often similar focal lengths they are usually designed with completely different objectives.
A. Portrait lenses are fast(usually 1.4 or 1.8 ), should focus quickly(though don't tell that to the EF 85/1.2L) are soft wide open except in the center, have nice bokeh, etc.
B. Macro lenses are slow(2.8 and slower), usually very sharp even wide open, perhaps "too sharp" for portrait work, designed to be sharp across the frame for reproduction work, slow to focus, etc.
So you CAN use a macro lens for a portrait lens, sure, its just not going to be ideal. Though something like the Tamron 60mm 2.0 macro may be a decent compromise. 90-105mm is pretty long for portraits on APS-C.
Also if you go for an af macro and want to use it as more of a general purpose lens, make sure to get one with a focus limiter.
The nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR is actually cheaper than the Sigma equivalent at my local shop (835$ for the Nikkor vs 875$).
The issue with the other, less expensive counterparts, is the fact that they all extend when focusing. No internal focus, which may be an issue. It also causes problems if ever I wish to get a lens-mounted ring flash, I'd assume.
I will definitely look at the other cheaper alternatives you listed, though I have always been skeptical about buying old, used glass, especially when I'm putting in 300+$ into it. I've yet to see any negative reviews about Nikons 105mm.
I am not concerned about AF ability at such high magnification, especially if I'm going to attempt 2:1.
Ok, now I'm beginning to sound like I have already made up my mind about the 105mm, but I can assure you that isn't the case.
The reason why I was considering a cheaper lense setup, is because it would allow me to put some money into a decent macro flash. Which is why I even considered a wider prime + tubes in the first place.
About portrait lenses, is there really such thing as "too sharp"? I've read about people saying that, but how exactly can that be a problem? It is very, very easy to soften an image in post, rather than having to sharpen it, no?
Isn't the famous 70-200mm f/2.8 often used for portraits because of its stunning sharpness?
Oh, and as for the tubes, I agree about getting MF tubes, but won't you lose the control you have over your aperture?
Most macros extend when focusing, shouldn't really be an issue. The Tamron 60/2.0 is an IF design though. Ring flashes tend to have a stretchy cord thing. People have been using non-IF macros for decades so, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I have 2+ thousand dollars in AF lenses currently, and only one was purchased new(sigma 50/1.4, wanted the warranty and used prices barely save you anything). Some of my lenses are over 25 years old. Lenses generally last a long, long time. Buy from KEH if you're worried about getting a "bad" one, they have a nice return policy, or buy from eBay sellers that accept returns for any reason(will be a little harder to find).
Is a used lens fractionally more likely to fail? Sure, but is it really a significant concern? I don't think so, any lens can fail at any time for any number of reasons. If you buy a new $900 lens instead of a used $300 lens, what are you really doing? You could buy 3 $300 lenses in the extremely unlikely case that the first two break and still break even. After you warranty
Even still, $450 for a brand new Tamron 90mm with 6 year warranty. http://www.adorama.com/TM9028NK.html
Another reason not to splurge on the most expensive lens in its class. Look, buying the top-end lens in a certain class before you really know why you need it over the lower end models is just silly. Its like buying a D3x/D800/etc because you "want to get into photography". Buy something more reasonable, sell it in the future if you find some reason that you need the 2-3x more expensive lens. Used lenses tend to hold their value very well, and actually go up in value with inflation generally. I'm sure the Nikon 105mm VR is a great lens, the thing is, so are a lot of the other options.
Too sharp is getting subjective, I won't really try to persuade you either way there, better just to try it yourself and see. Generally optics is all about compromise, sharpness at all cost vs bokeh etc.
Yes, luckily many nikon and 3rd party nikon lenses have proper aperture rings, newer nikon "G" glass doesn't though.
Oh looking at it, the 105 VR is screw drive AF too, thats really lame if you've got a low end body. Even if you don't need af at 2:1, you will want it at 1:2-infinity. Especially if you want to use it as a portrait lens(unless you're taking photos of statues that is). So if you've got a low end body, instead of spending $900 on a lens, put that money toward a body that will open up the whole nikon AF lens collection.
By the way, you are probably looking at the wrong 105mm. The old version. The new version is AF-S (105mm f/2.8 VR), meaning it focuses with all Nikon bodies, low, or high end.
What can you tell me about flash setups? There's so many different types, I'm honestly a little bit overwhelmed. I don't plan on spending the big bucks anytime soon, not until I feel confident in the research I've done.
From what I can tell, ring flashes such as this are ideal for macro:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/em-140-dg-macro-flash-sigma
Though, I've seen so many speedlights used, with a super ghetto DIY diffused taped on to them, like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mauhorng/3349814093/
I've always been an available-light-only shooter, so artificial lighting is new territory for me as well. I have much to learn.
Yep, you're right, the latest is AF-S. Which makes a compelling agrument for simply buying it instead of a new body/cheaper lens combo. Though you might find yourself in the same situation the next time you're looking to buy a specialty lens, so still something to consider for the long term.
Though there are still huge gaps in Nikon's lineup that aren't AF-S, they have been doing a good job of coming out with new AF-S lenses recently, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case going forward.
I am not at all a flash expert, especially when it comes to macro flash but yeah, ring flashes like that Sigma are commonly used.