I have four lenses and a teleconverter:

• AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor ED 12-24 mm f/4 G IF (current US list price $1225 / current Canadian list C$1040 / I paid C$1000)
• AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED ($800/C$800/C$850)
• AF-S DX Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 G ($200/C$280/C$240)
• AF-S Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 G ED VRII N ($2400/C$2400/C$2100)
• TC-17 E II ($550/C$430/C$400)

On my DX body, this gives me effective focal length (EFL) coverage of 18mm to 510mm. Both ends of the focal length range are covered by constant aperture lenses with ED (extra-low dispersion) glass. I've got a fast, sharp normal prime, and I've got a single walking around lens for when I don't want to be packing a lot of gear.

I got the 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 as my first lens when I was a newbie just trying out dSLR photography, for use on a trip to the Yucatan. I now use this mostly for informal photography - when I am trying to take a serious picture, I usually use one of the other lenses.

I added the 12-24 mm f/4 next, because once I decided to take photogaphy a bit more seriously, I wanted something wider and sharper for landscapes and architectural interiors.

I added the 35 mm f/1.8 to get a fast prime, so I could handle lower light, shallow depth of field (DOF) for still life, and to have a lens that would ncourage me to think more about composition.

I bought the 70-200 mm f/2.8 most recently along with the teleconverter. I use the lens without the teleconverter primarily for indoor or nighttime stage performances: theatre and concerts where flash would not be appropriate, but it also works well for indoor sports and can fill in for the little bit of portaiture I do. I sometimes use it instead of the 18-200 for outdoor sports, as well. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 instead of the 70-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 because the wider, constant aperture was more important than the extra reach. I need it for low light and shallow DOF.

The teleconverter gives me the reach when I need it. When I attach the teleconverter to the 70-200 (it doesn't work with my other lenses) the combination gives me a 120-340 mm f/4.8 lens (EFL 180-510 mm) that I use primarily for wildlife.

I don't really feel that I'll be buying any more lenses for a while. These seem to cover most of the shooting I want to do. There are two types of lenses that I have wished I had: something like a 10-40 mm f/2.8 DX, and a very long telephoto prime. The former just doesn't exist, and I can't quite justify spending $10K on the 400m f/2.8 or the 600mm f/4. Oh, and a 70-200 with equivalent image quality but that only weighed 200g would be nice, too.

What lenses do the rest of you have?

very nice! what settings did you shoot at? Did you really do this for 30s? How'd you prevent the shot from getting blown out by the fire?

Just got the 100mm 2.8L for my 7D. Thoughts on kenko extension tubes?

I only have two lenses for my Canon 7D atm:

Canon 50/1.4 USM
Canon 70-200/4.0L USM

In retrospect I should have gotten something wider like the 35/1.4L which is a little too expensive though, or one of the 28mm ones.

Love the 70-200/4.0L, it's smaller and it costs a fraction of the 70-200/2.8 (half compared to the 2.8 and a fourth of the 2.8 IS). Also bought mine used and saved a few $$$. Use it handheld outdoors or on a tripod indoors. Best value for money lens imo.

so the only physical remedy is: stopping down, and standing farther away from your subject? stacking several focuses seems like it takes a little bit of fun out of the process.

I want to buy a 100mm macro some day, and the image stabilization version from canon costs about 2x the non IS. It seems to me that it would be well worth it if you are walking around w/o a tripod. The reason being: to get a wider dof you may find yourself shooting at f/16 or f/22 more often than at f2.8 for macro.

btw, I just looked at some user pics from the kenko extension tubes and it seems like they are not bad. Maybe I will play w/ those on my 50mm. On amazon I read that their effect is less pronounced the longer the focal length of the lens is. Though I see many people combine the tubes w/ the 100mm macros.

Nice lens.

What sort of thoughts are you looking for?

• which ones to get
• experience using them
• pros & cons
• usage considerations
• vs. other makes
• vs. other type of magnification enhancement devices

Yes, but that's two separate solutions. Either one will have an effect on its own.

Who said serious photography is fun?

You'd need to have a tripod, good manual focus technique and a reasonably high fps rate.

I find it hard to imagine doing good macro photography without either IS or a tripod. No matter which you use, your image sharpness is definitely going to be diffraction-limited by f/22, and probably affected at f/16.

Yes. The magnification effect of the extension tube is (roughly? - there may be other additive factors) proportional to (extension tube length) / (lens focal length).

The largest magnification one can get with a macro lens is 1:1 - that is, the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject. And this only happens at the minimum focussing distance. Putting extension tubes on a macro lens is one way to get magnification larger than 1:1. Extension tubes also allow lenses that normally don't approach 1:1 magnification to get closer to 1:1, by allowing the lens to focus closer to the subject.

f5, yeah 30 seconds at 400 ISO and 11.5mm

I was tending to the fire, so by the time I got the shot it was probably more of a smolder than a roar, I imagine that helped, I think I got lucky.

thanks dothemath, as always. I love reading your detailed replies to questions.

I've put together a fairly low cost set of lenses for my first DSLR that I've been pretty happy with. I picked up a used D200 body for $400 after having used a friend's and doing quite a bit of research on what was out there last spring.
I started with a refurb 18-55mmVR f3.5-5.6 for $99. Optics are good for the price, focal range is handy.
Next I added a 50mm f1.8 AF-D($140) to gain some low light capabilities so I could shoot candids at a friend's wedding. I would have preferred to get the 35mm f1.8 DX, but it was sold out everywhere at the time. The 50 is a little tight indoors on a DX body, but good for shooting head and shoulders type shots, or small groups.

I picked up a 75-150mm f3.5 Series E and a 28mm f2.8 Series E for around $40 each on ebay. The 28mm is kinda meh, but it does go hyperfocal at ~2m, so manual focus is a breeze. The 75-150 has a kinda loose focus/zoom ring, which upon further research is typical of that lens. I recently read on bythom that the lens was outsourced to Kiron, and that it was also produced as a Kiron 70-150mm f4 and a Vivitar 70-150 f3.8 that don't have the loose ring problem (http://bythom.com/75150lens.htm).
I probably wouldn't recommend it on a DXX or a DXXXX series body unless you're ok with it either not metering or stop-down metering. Dx and Dxxx bodies have an ai tab on the mount and the ability to enter non-cpu lens data, so metering works great. The zoom range is on the short side, but a constant f3.5 max aperture on a telephoto you can snag for under $100 is pretty solid. I've been playing around with this a bit as a portrait lens lately. Fairly light considering the metal content and uses (relatively) cheap 52mm filters.

Right after I bought the 28mm, the 35mm DX lens came back in stock, so I ordered one and relegated the 28 to film use. For me, the 35mm f1.8 DX is pretty much enough reason to recommend Nikon bodies to entry level DSLR users. Canon just doesn't have a normal prime for crop sensor cameras at the same price/quality point. The 35 has become my walking around lens.

Not a lens, but I also picked up an SB-400 speedlite. You give up some of the flexibility of the larger speedlites, but it's also much cheaper(vs. other first party flashes) and smaller. The flash bulb tilts up to 90 degrees vertically, allowing you to use bounce flash. When using the camera in portrait mode you need to rig up a diffuser though. An index card works well, in a pinch I've used my hand cupped behind the flash (adds a slight warming effect to the picture, not unpleasant though, can end up casting odd shadows if you screw up).

I'd like to add an ultra-wide (Tokina 11-16) and a macro lens (60mm Micro-Nikkor is interesting on a DX body from a price/working distance stance, 105mm or 200mm Micro-Nikkor would be great). I'd like a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-200mmVRII f2.8, but even if I could afford it, a newer body would come first.

Well one thing I didn't consider is I either need all new filters now, or I can get one of these step down adapters: http://www.amazon.com/BestDealUSA-72...9679678&sr=1-9

I'm guessing though this is a bad idea because of vignetting and not letting in as much light?

Also super noob to nice lens here - do I want VR on/off most of the time? Normal/active?

Also in checking out Neutral Density filters on AMZN, there seem to be a lot that have some kind of all in one adjustable ND filter. I've never heard of that before. http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-Premi...9680273&sr=1-1

Sounds rinky-dink.

Well I didn't realize I accidentally had the price filter on my last search, so I was missing a bunch of the nicer filters. Now I'm looking at this baby for ND: http://www.amazon.com/Fader-72mm-Var...9682238&sr=1-2

The review seems pretty good. And if it works seem like this would be a lot easier than carrying around 4 non-variable ND filters.

This is a very interesting way to put together a lens lineup without spending a lot of money. To me it has a bit more logic than buying fewer new low-end lenses. If you aren't going to go after highest quality optics, why not go after more low-cost lenses?

However, you did manage to include two lenses with very high IQ : price ratio as well, the 50mm and the 35mm.
I think this lens is significantly better than the comparable Canon and you got it for 50% off current list.

Open wider than about f/3.3 this 50mm lens will be soft, especially at the edges. At f/5.6 to f/8, it will give excellent edge-to-edge sharpness. At smaller apertures, sharpness will begin to suffer from diffraction. If you want good sharpness at wide apertures on a Nikon 50mm, you really need one of the f/1.4s. (Soft around the edges might look nice for wedding photos, though.)

The series E lenses were lenses Nikon sold from 1979 to the '90s. They were made from simple optical designs and were made of lower quality materials than Nikon's then-current top-line lenses. Their build quality is comparable to Nikon's current lower-price lenses, and their optical quality is often superior.
I was confused about your nomenclature here, since Nikon uses "DX" to designate its APS-C format. I finally figured out you were using 'x's as placeholders for digits in camera names.

All series E lenses share the same metering characteristics, so are of limited use on many dSLR bodies. I also understood that on some bodies (Dnnn designations, perhaps) you only get A and M modes with these lenses, not S or P. Don't use these lenses with an entry-level body. They are fine on a D200 or higher end Nikons.
75-150mm seems like a good focal length range for a portrait lens on a DX body. Is f/3.5 fast enough to get a sufficiently shallow DOF? What is the bokeh like?

Very good walking around lens on DX for those who have the discipline to forego a zoom. Where have I heard the sentiments in the rest of that paragraph before? How much did you have to pay for the 35mm DX?

Those are some seriously nice lenses you are listing there. I've got the last one, and it is great. A former colleague has the 105mm Micro and likes it a lot.

You're right. Avoid step-down adaptors, except perhaps a small decrement when using an FX lens on a DX body. Step up adaptors are often OK. I use a 72 to 77 mm step up so I can put my 77mm filters on my 18-200mm lens. That way three of my four lenses can share the same set of filters.

On when handheld, except possibly on lowest focal lengths, or when using fast shutter speeds. Off on tripod. Normal, unless you are taking a bumpy ride while shooting.

A general rule of thumb is the slowest safe shutter speed is the inverse of the focal length. With VR II you can theoretically get four more stops (but I wouldn't count on more than three). Whenever your shutter speed is even approaching that guideline, make sure VR is on.

I'm not aware of any compelling argument to ever turn VR off when shooting handheld, except battery drain.

Thanks as always DTM. That's perfect for me since I like to shoot handheld so much.

Also I already have a set of 77m filters for my wide angle. So I just need the step up adapter. Duh! Not sure why I didn't think of that. One set of lenses will be nice.

Btw I also emailed our photo tour guide about the Vari ND filter I was looking at (the good one). Here is his reply:

I'm going to Death Valley and the area around there next weekend on another tour with him. Hope to get some great shots.

Is this focal range really handy? Your comment prompted me to think about the current Canon and Nikon kit lenses.

I tend to think of focal lengths on APS-C in terms of effective focal length (EFL), which is their focal length equivalent for 35mm film or full frame dSLRs. I compare coverage by looking at which typical prime lenes are covered. The traditional primes were 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135m, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm.

Nikon's 18-55mm VR kit lens has an EFL range of 27-82 mm. It (nearly) covers four of the traditional primes: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. That's normal, two wider than normal and one longer. This focal length range has been the typical kit lens for entry level dSLRs pretty much
since the introduction of APS-C format cameras. (I've always wondered why Nikon didn't make these as 18-57mm and Canon didn't make 18-53mm, given their different crop factors.) US List: $200

The 18-55mm VR replaces the 18-55mm ED II lens, which is similar overall, except it lacks VR and is slighly sharper in the centre and less sharp at the edges. It is still available for a US list price of $120.

I've always found the 18-55mm focal length range leaving me wanting more, especally at the longer end. Maybe I'm just greedy.

Nikon did have an 18-70mm IF as the kit lens for the D70 and D70s. This covered two typical primes longer than normal. They still offer this lens. It lists at US $460, so it is not very popular with the sort of buyer who takes the kit lens. Also it does not have VR. Its build quality is much better then the preceding lenses, but image sharpness
is slightly worse.

Also dampening demand for the 18-70, Nikon more recently introduced an 18-105mm ED VR (which also has IF), for $60 less than the 18-70. This is the kit lens for the D90 and D7000. (I wonder why Nikon made an 18-105mm rather than an 18-90mm.) The 18-105 is the sharpest of these four Nikon kit lenses and has better build quality than the two 18-55 versions. OTOH it has worse distortion, chromatic aberration (CA) and vignetting. The distortion can be corrected in post, the CA is removed in-camera for JPEGs, and the vignetting is not a problem at most useful focal length / aperture combinations.

All of the above lenses have the same variable aperture range of f/3.5-5.6, except the 18-70mm, which is f/3.5-4.5.

Canon offers the 18-55mm IS lens for its Digital Rebel lineup. This lens is similar in build quality and other characterists to the Nikon 18-55 VR. The Canon may be slightly faster to autofocus, but the Nikon is significantly sharper. They have the same list price.

As with the Nikon VR, the Canon IS replaced a similar lens that didn't have IS. Unlike Nikon, Canon doesn't continue to offer the older version as a lower-priced alternative.

Again like Nikon, Canon offers a wider ranged kit lens on its higher grade APS-C bodies. On the 60D, this is the 18-135mm IS. Canon outdoes Nikon in zoom range (7.5x to 5.8x) but falls far short in the other optical characteristics, especially the most important: sharpness.

The 18-135 IS is now available in a kit with the 7D as well, but when the 7D was first launched in the US, the standard kit lens was the ancient 28-135mm IS. This was the first lens to have IS, and it dates from the pre-digital 90's. This is a puzzling choice to offer as a kit lens for an APS-C body with 18M pixels. At the wide end it is only normal. There is really no capability for landscapes. At the other end, it covers past four telephoto primes. It has the least center sharpness of any of the lenses I discuss in the post, yet it is matched with the highest resolution sensor. What were they thinking?

Canon has some fine lenses, but their kit lenses aren't among them. The two current Nikon kit lenses are priced the same as and lower than their Canon counterparts, respectively, but are both sharper than either Canon. If image sharpness matters to you, it might be worth considering buying a Nikon body in a kit, but with Canon, buy body only, and get a better lens.

Holy cow that VR is cool.



This is in my bedroom which isn't lit very well at 1/3 sec. shutter speed (!) f/3.5 - ISO-400.

holy cow clean your walls and resize your images before posting

The focal range is handy given the set of lenses I have. I don't have anything else that gets as wide, and my only other zoom is manual focus. Longer would be nice, but at ~$400 for the 18-105 and 18-135, a used 18-200 at ~$600 becomes pretty attractive. The 18-55 was more attractive at $99 refurb than at current prices though. I was planning to get an 18-200 down the line, but as soon as I bought my 50mm f1.8 I got addicted to large apertures. I think at this point I'd end up spending the money on a super wide zoom or another prime instead and stick to carrying my photo murse with me (Sears knock-off of Lowepro Slingshot). I've also been shooting some film with a Nikon F2. I've found that shooting primes and also shooting film has been good for working on my skills. Having to adjust my position rather than a zoom ring makes me more mindful of framing and composition. Shooting full manual film on the F2 has also been good for my fundamentals. I cruised in program mode with my D200 for the first 3 months or so, after that I've moved to shooting manual >95% of the time.

In regards to your earlier post, I should have gone with D*/D**/D***/D**** instead of using X to avoid confusion. The bokeh on the 75-150 is decent, and f3.5 gives shallow enough DOF even on a crop sensor camera to blur the background. DOF is shallow enough that its already starting to lose super sharp focus by the time you get back to the eyes in this shot. I do have to work at really nailing focus, but the lens is reasonably sharp if you hit it right.

My walls are clean, that spot is just a nail hole. I left the image large so you could see the sharpness ldo.

Have you tried using the lens correction tool in Lightroom or ACR? Looks like there's a fair bit of barrel distortion going on. Nice sharpness for 1/3 sec handheld for sure.

I'm usually pretty poor at editing, I like how this one turned out, opinions?

I'm usually pretty poor at editing, I like how this one turned out, opinions? Should I crop the bottom portion off?

I think it looks awesome, my photos never turn out like that

this is one i took from New Zealand, beautiful beautiful place