Currently, I'm using a 28-105mm USM for my main lens. I love it. I also have a 70-300mm (freebie with camera from Quantary) which I use on occasion. I want to know what lens will produce images that have that "crisp magazine" look like this one. I was thinking of getting a 50mm f/1.8 fixed lens and a 55-250mm Image Stabilizer lens. I liked the 55-250 because it has Image Stabilization built in and thought that may produce crisper images. I don't know if the other companies like Sigma or Tamron have IS technology ......

And as far as price goes I'm not looking for the 1,000 dollar gear. At most, $500. Any opinions? Mainly, I just want really sharp shots for my budget range and hopefully this lens will be my "carry around" lens.

Thanks,
Mason

[mduell]

The lens isn't going to make your photos look like that, the photographer is.

The 55-250 is a great lens for the price and IS helps when shooting static objects with longer exposures. And everyone needs a nifty fifty!

[Veltliner]

What camera are you using? I suppose a Canon.

The best lens for you depends on the resolution of your sensor and what you want to shoot.

If you have a 50D with a 15mp sensor, lesser lenses will be outresolved by the sensor, which results in muddy images.

If you have such a camera, get a really good lens, and not more than a 3x zooms. Longer zooms give you a hit on contrast and resolution on the lens.

What do you want to shoot outdoors? Street? Landscape?

The best lenses are usually faster ones, and also with a maximum opening that stays constant throughout the range.

I always recommend to get fewer, better lenses than a larger selection of half-ass glass.

[OreoCookie]

IS will not give you crisp images. The photo you've linked to was shot in broad daylight and IS is useless if you have more than enough light to use short shutter speeds. Exchanging one cheap zoom for another cheap zoom will only be a waste of money.

There are a few factors to get such `crisp' images, and the first one is you, the photographer. Of course, you are limited by lenses: cheap zooms (old one and new one alike) have smaller initial apertures and thus it's harder to separate foreground from background due to the shallower depth of field. But lenses that have a larger initial aperture and the same zoom range are a lot more expensive (new, starting at around $800 or so) -- and they are heavy (mine weighs 1300 to 1400 g + body (another 800 g)). I like my lenses heavy, but most people don't.

I suggest you pick up a `nifty fifty' instead. Gives you affordable shallow depth of field. Since you mention USM, I assume you have a Canon. You have a choice of spending $100 to $350 or so (cheap Canon f/1.8 to Canon or Sigma f/1.4; the Sigma is really good). You have much more creative leeway for very little money: it's a slight tele (corresponds to 75-80 mm on full frame, a classic portrait focal length), it's very light and small (except for the Sigma) and has good image quality.

Guys, thanks for the comments. I'm going to do some more research now that I know what to look for.

What do you want to shoot outdoors? Street? Landscape?

Mainly outdoors - mountains - flowers - lakes - tress.

What camera are you using? I suppose a Canon.

Canon Rebel XTi (10.1 MP)

IS will not give you crisp images.

Really? I was hoping it would help.

[OreoCookie]

IS only reduces camera shake. Camera shake is only relevant if you shoot times longer than roughly 1/focal length (that was the rule of thumb back in the film days). It does nothing to `freeze' motion of your subjects or if the shutter speeds are much faster than 1/focal length. In broad daylight, you will have no advantage whatsoever from IS. Inside of a church for your hand-held shot of the beautiful window, it might. It will not give you the `crispness' you are looking for.

I'm not someone who advocates `a lot helps a lot', but the shot you have linked to was made with a 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor that runs about $1700. As you can imagine, the IQ is usually better and you have more creative freedom. However, you don't necessarily need such an expensive and heavy lens.

[tooki]

Hi Mason,

Originally Posted by ncmason 

Mainly outdoors - mountains - flowers - lakes - tress.

I think you need different lenses for those things. For flowers, especially if you want to get really close, you probably want a dedicated macro lens. For the rest, you probably should get a very wide angle lens, and learn to use a polarizer. My 12-24mm ultrawide and my 60mm macro are my hands-down favorite lenses. (I'd get a 100 or 180mm macro if I could afford it.) You'd be looking at about $500-600 for the ultrawide and $400 for the macro. But read on.

In general, though, I suggest that before spending money on more gear, spend time learning more about photography so you can get great results out of what you already have. Buying a better camera doesn't make you a better photographer any more than buying an expensive instrument makes you a better musician. It takes learning, study and practice. I've gotten "magazine like" pictures out of a $200 point-and-shoot. It's about knowing how to make (not take!) a good picture, and knowing the limitations of the gear you are working with. (Big, expensive gear gives you a wider range of situations to work in, but sometimes a little tiny camera can be taken into situations where a big camera is prohibited or too conspicuous -- or too heavy to schlep!)

If I had to suggest things to learn, I'd say:

1. Learn about light -- ambient light artificial light, and how to control each. Don't always trust your camera to expose "correctly". Exposure compensation is your friend.
2. Learn how to use your lenses -- for example, that shooting with the aperture wide open or very small will not give you sharp pictures like the middle of the aperture range
3. Learn to use filters -- a circular polarizer is your best friend for outdoor photography, and a graduated neutral density is also worth having
4. Learn to use white balance -- in many cases, a slightly warm (not neutral or blue) white balance will make a picture more appealing
5. Learn to frame a picture so that it tells something compelling, or draws you into the scene.
6. Don't expect Photoshop to take a lousy photo and make it great.

The only purchase I would advise you to make right now is a circular polarizer. (I suggest getting a high-quality very large (e.g. 77mm diameter) polarizer, and then get a step-down ring to make it fit on each lens you have. That'll save you money compared to buying a separate size polarizer for each lens you get!) Don't buy any more lenses until you've mastered what you have.


Some examples of my work, with explanations:
http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio...Photos.html#34 - Point-and-shoot camera in manual mode, white balanced against pale pink to make it go cyan, shot entirely in the ambient incandescent light in the stairwell.

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio...Photos.html#30 - shot entirely in late Sunday afternoon light in P mode on a point and shoot, on a tripod. Just before releasing the shutter, I very lightly breathed on the lens to fog it up ever so slightly, to give that halo-ey, dreamy effect.

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio...Photos.html#19 - in manual mode on a DSLR, using my macro lens at dusk. I used a short shutter speed and small aperture to eliminate ambient light, and two off-camera flashes to the side to illuminate the flower without lighting the ground.

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio...Photos.html#24 - DSLR in A mode (same as Av mode on a Canon), with my everyday zoom at its widest (18mm) but up close. Separate, shoe-mounted flash in automatic fill-flash mode. Probably manually set to "cloudy" white balance (which I use for almost all daylight photography because it's a bit warm).

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio.../Photos.html#3 - DSLR on tripod at night, under a sodium street lamp. White balance set to daylight, to retain the color of the sodium lamp. Medium-small aperture (higher number!) to create very long exposure time (8 secs) to create buttery smooth waterfall.

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio.../Photos.html#0 - DSLR with everyday zoom lens at wide angle, again up close to get into the action and exaggerate perspective. Probably A mode at a medium aperture. Shot in a combination of existing incandescent light as well as an on-camera flash unit with an orange filter (to make the flash light the same color as the incandescent) aimed at the ceiling, with the camera set to incandescent white balance (fine tuned to be warm).

http://www.antoniotejada.com/Antonio.../Photos.html#9 - One of my favorites, shot from the waist at night on a $200 Sony pocket camera, all automatic except that I turned the flash off. Technically imperfect, but a fantastic frame that captured the essence of the moment beautifully.

Take a look at those and other pictures on that site, as well as on my flickr page at www.flickr.com/photos/tooki and ask if you want to know how I did it. I'd be happy to help.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ncmason 

I want to know what lens will produce images that have that "crisp magazine" look like this one.

No lens produces that -- it's the photographer and the situation that do. Let's pick apart that image and see what makes it great.

• Great subject -- you have to have something great to photograph. This picture clearly tells the story of this kid at the beach monkeying with sea critters.
• Nice angle and framing -- draws you into the action.
• A clear focal point -- the crab. The background is defocused (shallow depth of field), so it doesn't compete. The background behind the boy is also devoid of "busy" stuff, and it's a color that contrasts against the boy, so he stands out from the blue. (Also, the lens was focused on the eye of the crab -- essential when shooting any animal or person, the glint on the eye MUST be razor sharp.)
• Great light -- beautiful warm daylight at an angle that brought out texture

So, how much of that is the camera and lens? Well, getting shallow depth of field requires the big sensor of an SLR, which you have. (Don't expect this out of the typical point and shoot.) It also probably had the white balance set manually, which every DSLR (and most digitals otherwise) let you do. Finally, the choice of lens also allows greater depth of field (long focal lengths give shallower depths of field compared to short focal lengths), and the aperture was set wide, also to minimize depth of field.

In other words, you could have pretty much made the same shot (perhaps with the background slightly less defocused) with your camera and your long zoom. It just takes practice to know how to do it!

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If you have such a camera, get a really good lens, and not more than a 3x zooms. Longer zooms give you a hit on contrast and resolution on the lens.

That may have been the case in the past, but the Nikon 18-200 VR (11x zoom range!) is sharp and contrasty throughout.

Don't buy any more lenses until you've mastered what you have.

I think you're right. I'm going to look more into what camera settings will work best in what situation.

The only purchase I would advise you to make right now is a circular polarizer.

I'm ordering one as soon as possible, the store was out earlier this week.

Thanks again Tooki,
Mason

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by tooki 

That may have been the case in the past, but the Nikon 18-200 VR (11x zoom range!) is sharp and contrasty throughout.

I disagree.

The 18-200 is a horrible lens.

Photozone.de is of the same opinion and gives it only 2,5 stars.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...report?start=2

[Veltliner]

To the OP:

Just saw you have a Quandaray zoom. Uuh...

I really recommend selling all that third rate stuff and getting ONE GOOD LENS. The 17-55/2.8 is an excellent lens. Of course, it costs 950$.

For shooting landscape you can get by with a smaller zoom range, but you need excellent resolution for the detail.

Later you can get the 70-200/f4 (if you want a tele zoom) which is probably the best tele zoom available.

Check out photozone.de. They also test third party lenses. A Tokina 18-55 has received an excellent review, but I know the quality control of Tokina is bad, and you can get a really bad copy. The web is full of complaints about Tokina's quality control. If you can't afford Zeiss (and who can?), stay with Canon lenses. Except in wide angle zooms, where some Canon users actually buy a nikon wide angle zoom, available in a Canon mount.

I just looked at your example of a crispy image. I can tell you, that once you get good exposure and the basics of Photoshop, this is not hard to do.

I just recommend not giving it such a heavy yellow tint. (in short: I don't think that shot is crisp at all).

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The 18-200 is a horrible lens.

Photozone.de is of the same opinion and gives it only 2,5 stars.

Bullspittle. Even their own conclusion is that it's a great walkaround lens that produces great images. And they say that its resolution is excellent -- the optical flaws are in vignetting and pincushion distortion.

Have you ever actually used that lens? No, it's not a high-end professional ED lens, but it's also not priced that way. In everyday use, it works great. I had one and loved it, but this was back when it was expensive, and I ended up selling it because I never use telephoto, and got an ultrawide instead.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If you can't afford Zeiss (and who can?), stay with Canon lenses.

Why bother? In tests, the Zeiss lenses are no better than Canon and Nikon's professional lenses, but more expensive.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Except in wide angle zooms, where some Canon users actually buy a nikon wide angle zoom, available in a Canon mount.

Really? Canon's ultrawide has a better reputation than Nikon's, and it's 30% cheaper.

[Brien]

The 50mm f1.8 is what, 80 bucks on Amazon? Even if you don't think you'll need it, the price is a steal.

the 55-250 looks nice but it's an EF-S so if you plan on upgrading to a 5d or 1ds it's not the best choice. The 28-135 IS (the kit lens on the 40d and 50d) is really nice as an all-around lens, I don't own one but I've used a few and have been really impressed. You'll only be gaining 30mm on the far end though so you are probably better off either selling your 28-105 or just going for the 55-250 if you don't plan on going fullframe. For $230 or so (on Amazon) for a lens that long with IS it's also a great deal. I've thought about getting one.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Brien 

The 50mm f1.8 is what, 80 bucks on Amazon? Even if you don't think you'll need it, the price is a steal.

I read reports about this lens falling apart. Literally. The front coming off and the lens elements falling into your lap.

Better go with the next one up. Or get an older, used 1,8/50, which had a better build.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Why bother? In tests, the Zeiss lenses are no better than Canon and Nikon's professional lenses, but more expensive.

I don't bother. But some people like it, and they are good lenses. But they are manual focus, and I wouldn't buy a manual focus lens.

Originally Posted by tooki 

Really? Canon's ultrawide has a better reputation than Nikon's, and it's 30% cheaper.

As I work with Canon I'd love if this were true. Canon's strengths lie in the longer range. They have some excellent zooms, of course, that go down to 17mm.

But it's a regular among those working with Canon that they demand better wide angle zooms.

Regarding the 18-200, I think you lose too much contrast and detail with it, and there's a quality that cannot be measured in lines of resolution.

This is contrast. Contrast cannot be measured and is a key thing in lenses.

The farther a zoom reaches, the more you pay for it by quality of detail and contrast. Sharpness might not be affected.

Physics has its laws. Zooms got almost as good as primes, and that's great. But not all zooms. I'd never buy a super range zoom like the 18-200 (Canon brought out a similar ones). While "horrible" might have been too strong a word, they are still not good enough.

[Veltliner]

Generally, it's not good to save on lenses.

Buy a simpler body instead, or fewer lenses.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Contrast cannot be measured

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Regarding the 18-200, I think you lose too much contrast and detail with it, and there's a quality that cannot be measured in lines of resolution.

This is contrast. Contrast cannot be measured and is a key thing in lenses.

The farther a zoom reaches, the more you pay for it by quality of detail and ...

The 18-200 isn't a professional lens, and having used it with some regularity, I'd say that at no point is it any worse than any other consumer-grade Nikon zoom. (Even Nikon's cheapest pack-in lenses for DSLRs are actually not bad at all, but they're certainly not generally comparable to the professional models.) That said, even professional photographers like the 18-200 as the "ultimate" walkaround lens.

I decided to forgo it because I never use long focal lengths, I am usually shooting either with my ultrawide (12-24mm Tokina, the only non-Nikon brand I'd even consider) or my 60mm micro-Nikkor.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Brien 

The 50mm f1.8 is what, 80 bucks on Amazon? Even if you don't think you'll need it, the price is a steal.

the 55-250 looks nice but it's an EF-S so if you plan on upgrading to a 5d or 1ds it's not the best choice. The 28-135 IS (the kit lens on the 40d and 50d) is really nice as an all-around lens, I don't own one but I've used a few and have been really impressed. You'll only be gaining 30mm on the far end though so you are probably better off either selling your 28-105 or just going for the 55-250 if you don't plan on going fullframe. For $230 or so (on Amazon) for a lens that long with IS it's also a great deal. I've thought about getting one.

As I said, a) we don't know the OP's real needs, and b) the OP needs to learn more about photography.

There's no point in buying more lenses until you know how to use what you've got.

Guys, sorry if I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm going to pick up a 50mm f/1.8 lens for now.

That's it.

When I have more experience with exposure and aperture, then I will move up to possibly more advanced gear.

Thanks,
Mason

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by tooki 

The 18-200 isn't a professional lens, and having used it with some regularity, I'd say that at no point is it any worse than any other consumer-grade Nikon zoom. (Even Nikon's cheapest pack-in lenses for DSLRs are actually not bad at all, but they're certainly not generally comparable to the professional models.) That said, even professional photographers like the 18-200 as the "ultimate" walkaround lens.

I decided to forgo it because I never use long focal lengths, I am usually shooting either with my ultrawide (12-24mm Tokina, the only non-Nikon brand I'd even consider) or my 60mm micro-Nikkor.

I use my 17-55/2.8 as a walk-around, and never miss the long focal lengths. 55mm at a 1,6 crop factor equals 80mm in FF, so that's fine. I remember once having had some primes longer than that in country far, far away (shooting film, and Nikon), and I barely used anything over 80mm.

The Nikon16-85, for example, is a consumer grade zoom (DX) that got great reviews, but I'm sure those reviews are giving it so much applause as it is good for a consumer grade lens.

I have had great experiences with shorter range pro grade zooms and would never recommend anybody anything else. It's just that when you do the image in Photoshop, you will pay for any comfort you allowed yourself to have during shooting at the cost of the right equipment.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Of course I meant: the contrast performance of a lens can't be measured. I let that short formulation ride on its context. Well, there came mduell, and read it against the grain.

Now I have to write a newsletter. Because I'd hate to disappoint you.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Of course I meant: the contrast performance of a lens can't be measured.

If anyone is interested in lens contrast, resolution, and the measurement thereof, Luminous Landscape has an excellent write-up.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Of course I meant: the contrast performance of a lens can't be measured.

Well, of course, contrast can be measured, but it depends on how you define contrast. The most common one is related to resolution of lenses. So you don't have one `measure' of contrast, but several. And you can measure them quantitatively.

In any case, anyone who is interested in photography knows that lenses with smaller zoom ranges typically outperform superzooms. But most photographers aren't interested in taking pictures of bath room tiles, they want to have a practical lens that covers the zoom range they need. (Personally, I have a strong dislike for super zooms, but that's just me.)