Camera and Lens

[Justin Carl]

Hello everyone!
Let me begin this thread by saying I have way to many hobbies.
ATV's, fishing, chameleons, and now cameras! None of them are cheap by the way.

Camera's are slowly taking over my spending money.
I keep finding out the hardway what lenses not to buy, and I'm reaching out for help.
My first mistake was trading in my 18-55 kit lens for something more "versatile".
I ended up getting a 18-135, but it dosent close focus and respond like my 18-55.
The 18-135 is a great lens if your taking pictures further then 5 feet, but not good for chameleons.
I also bought a 70-300 Promaster, but it dosent have VR(vibration reduction).
Waste of money in my opinion.
My best choice buying a lens has been the 60mm macro, but it dosent autofocus on my D40.
It's really not a problem being a manual foucs because I have learned how to use it.
My latest buy was the SB400 flash, and that is a must buy for anyone with a Nikon SLR.
It's light weight, small, fast to recharge, and cheap at 115 bucks.
It's a perfect fit for my D40 becuase it adds to how a small camera can have a big punch.
I got to play with an autofocus 105mm macro the other day, and that sure was nice!
It was extremely fast and smooth focusing.

My real question for the guys and gals out there is...
What is the perfect lens for photographing you chameleons?

 

[Cameron B]

Jason,
You've made the rookie mistakes in the past like most anyone goes through just starting out....cheaper lenses, but you quickly realize that cheaper really does mean cheaper, both in cost and quality.

I really don't know the lenses available for Nikon cameras, as I have a Canon. However, I've now changed my trend to stick with Canon's lenses for Canon's cameras. L Glass is the nicest glass type that Canon sells. For chameleons, I've found that 17-40 is a great lens range for up close shots. Canon sells this in an f2.8 form, and it goes for somewhere between $500-700. Not sure if Nikon has something similar? With an f-stop of 2.8 and a small range of motion, you won't find this with IS (or as Nikon calls it, VR).

For a more natural look, the 70-200f2.8 with Image Stabilization has worked great. This lens goes for around $1,600 or so. An alternative would be the Bigma (Sigma) at 50-500...good glass, no VR, but hold it steady (trust me, after a while you will learn to...I suggest going out an panning with it to get a feel on how to better your human "tripod" skills) and it will produce some nice shots.

The real question is do you want your chameleons to be seeing you, or do you want to zoom in up close without them knowing and catching them more in their "natural" state? lower F stops always help, and they also help you in low light moments, but it really depends on what you want to capture so that you may determine what you want to buy. This is why we have so many ranges and lenses for sale in the world of photography.

 

[royden]

Nothing has beat my 60mm macro Justin. Nothing's even come close yet. The canon version has AF but it's often easier to manual focus.

I'm bidding on a sigma 17-70mm with macro focusing right now, I'll tell you what it's like. It can focus at 9 inches from the sensor which isn't bad. F2.8. I'mm buying it because I couldn't afford the Canon equivelant.

I have a Tamron 75-300, that's nothing special, but I thought it worked just fine for my Costa Rica trip.

 

[VerteX]

As a Canon shooter here, I'd like to share my experience with chameleon photography since this is what you specifically asked:

I've recently (Feb 2008) purchased my first L glass; the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens after having used the Canon Rebel xti kit lens and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens (a.k.a. Plastic Fantastic/Nifty fifty). The L lens produced photos that are by far the most sharp and vivid pictures I've ever taken. Having a very versatile focal range allowed me to take pictures of my chameleons from a distance or up close for more magnification power. However, I've recently sold this lens because f/4 was slower than I thought for indoor lighting in order to capture an even slow moving subject. I'm talking strictly about artificial light from bulbs. My next purchase will probably be Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens for it's IS capability, versatility, and it's sharpness (please see iso 12233 Chart comparison with the kit lens for quality difference). The second next purchase will most probably be the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens for its macro and max aperture capabilities.

The nifty-fifty is a cheap lens. Cheap build quality, cheap price BUT a very sharp and very fast. Last month's Calcifer was taken with nifty-fifty and entered that photo even when I had many photographs from the L lens. This lens allowed me to capture a sharp photograph at the point of focus with about 1/60. I wouldn't be able to shoot this photograph with L lens at f/4 and 1/60 without having the photo too dark due to maximum aperture being f/4.

Before I go too far off topic, and since you asked chameleon photography, I suggest you to get the 105mm macro. Not the new version. I see that the old version has had great reviews and the new version compared with the old is just mediocre. This is a prime lens, and is not going to be versatile, however, it will let you auto-focus and will have an added benefit of getting up close to your subjects. f/2.8 is a good indoor lighting lens. Overall, I'd recommend 105mm macro for chameleon/indoor/macro/portrait photography. I think it's a good bang for the buck.

Hope this helps,
V

 

[royden]

That was helpful to me too vertex, thanks. I never hear enough good reviews about the nifty fifty. I should pick one up some day.

Maybe it's just time to switch over to Canon Justin?

(j/k Nikon is plenty good, all my friends shoot nikon)

 

[Justin Carl]

Thanks guys!
I was considering getting the Nikon nifty fifty too.
Great price at 120 bucks and had great reviews.
I think I might get the 105 macro or at least try to burrow someones to try it out.

18-55

18-135

70-300

60mm macro and my avatar.

 

[Justin Carl]

That was helpful to me too vertex, thanks. I never hear enough good reviews about the nifty fifty. I should pick one up some day.

Maybe it's just time to switch over to Canon Justin?

(j/k Nikon is plenty good, all my friends shoot nikon)

Dont say that!
haha
I played with a Cannon XSi at Best Buy last Monday.
I dont kow-It was pretty nice.
If I had the money I'd have both.

 

[dandes]

Another Canon guy here..
For wildlife close ups i use the canon 100mm 2.8 macro and its a stunning lens but i would reccomend the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro for the nikon as its a stunning lens but the focusing is a bit slow but this is not really relevant in macro work.
It also doubles as a great portrait lens for general work and is tack sharp.

I shoot using the canons L grade lenses and the image quality is amazing! My advice is spend as much as you an afford on good lenses as they really do make a difference

 

[VerteX]

Another Canon guy here..
For wildlife close ups i use the canon 100mm 2.8 macro and its a stunning lens but i would reccomend the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro for the nikon as its a stunning lens but the focusing is a bit slow but this is not really relevant in macro work.
It also doubles as a great portrait lens for general work and is tack sharp.

I shoot using the canons L grade lenses and the image quality is amazing! My advice is spend as much as you an afford on good lenses as they really do make a difference

Completely agree with dandes here. Please see the ISO crop comparisons between the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens. Sigma is very very good but Canon seems to deliver more contrast and sharper image. Canon also seems to have more chromatic aberration though. In fact they are results from both lenses are quite satisfactory. I wouldn't be able to tell which photo came from which lens.

Justin, If you want versatility in a lens, you should get a quality zoom lens. I recently learned the glass for this lens is from Tamron. Tamron lenses can be good. Look at the ISO crops before buying, they tell a lot about the lens. Another great community based reviews site is http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Although, primes can be a hassle for their fixed focal length, I leave the nifty-fifty most of the time on the camera. This lens makes up its disadvantages in sharpness and fastness. I would stick with a fast prime when I'm shooting chameleons any given day. For outside use, I really like the versatility of Canon 70-200mm. Great focal range to have.

Royden, check this out: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/349/cat/10

 

[royden]

Sweet! Thanks vertex, this is what I wanted to hear...

Sigma 17-70mm vs Canon 18-55mm kit lens
Compared to Canon's 18-55mm kit lens, this Sigma has wider apertures across its focal length range, and gives you a fair bit more at the telephoto end. It's also much better on chromatic aberration at all focal lengths. All in all, a worthy upgrade over the Canon 18-55, to the point that many purchasers of Canon's entry-level DSLRs may want to consider getting a bare body and then purchasing this lens separately.

Can someone tell me what chromatic aberration is?

Amazing Justin, there is a real noticeable difference in those two photos. Why is it that the nikon 18-55 is so superior to the canon kit 18-55? That's weird.

I found that really interesting. I'm going to post some of my different lens photos in the morning.

 

[VerteX]

This article explains CA quite nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

CA can be best corrected by fluorite elements placed in one of the groups in the lens design. These lens elemens are called Apochromat for their chomatic properties. CA effect is seen more towards the edges of the photograph in the out of focus areas rather than in the middle.

One of the main reasons I opted to invest in one of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM lenses instead of the f/2.8 version is that the f/2.8 version does not employ fluorite element thus the images produced by this lens are more prone to CA on high contrast edges. ISO comparison here.

Related reading:
Purple fringing

 

[Tygerr]

Can someone tell me what chromatic aberration is?

The common term for chromatic aberration is 'purple fringing' - you can often see it on the edges of brightly light objects taken with compact digital cameras. On SLR lenses it is usually less apparent, but can be quite noticeable on some zoom lenses.

For a more scientific explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

 

[royden]

Thanks for the purple fringe lesson. It takes seeing an example of it to understand it better.

These might be a little big, but here's my two lens examples. I can't find any shots where I used the 18-55 anymore. I just plain never use it, instead force myself to run all overplace with the 60mm.

These are the 75-300mm Tamron. f/4.0 I think, or 5. Costa Rican wildlife, sometimes shot from the beach, sometimes from the boat. I'm fairly happy with how it did.

And more 60mm examples which I post here all the time, but you sure can see the difference in clarity (and focal depth..I'm working on it).

Catherine's animals(Pardalisgirl) in those last three shots.