Beginner's flash and my next lens

Hatter The Mad

Hatter The Mad

Hatter The Mad

Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2008
Posts
8,725
Location
UK
Hi

I've had a Nikon D90 for 3 years, and I am 'getting there'. I think I've exhausted what I can out of the kit lens (18-105), and now I want to learn how to use a flash and consider my next lens.

I mainly photograph people, animals (pets) in close quarters, and landscapes and buildings (holiday snaps+).

My next areas of focus (no pun intended) are:
  • Improving landscape photography
  • Improving low light/impact photography

Do you think landscape photography would be hampered by my current lens (ie the constraint I feel is more down to me, not the lens), and is flash the right thing or should I be considering fat prime lenses for low-light portrait/subject photography?
 
Last edited:
Get yourself a decent lens first. I had the canon 18-55 kit lens, bought myself a cheap nifty fifty and that was great, then I bought a 24-70 f2.8L and I love it.

I recently got a flash and I'm now struggling to get it right as I'm finding the learning curve much steeper.
 
You'll have fun and learn a lot with either better lenses or a new flash. For lenses, if you want to go wide - how wide? The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S is a fantastic wide-angle zoom - and good in low light - but costs £1300.00! For a cheap low light lens the Nikon 50mm F1.8 is fantastic value and is widely viewed as a no-brainer as a first prime lens.
I think my Nikon SB-800 is probably the most useful bit of kit I've bought for my six year old D50. If you like taking pictures of people and pets indoors a good flash will blow you away. Trying various angles of bounce and output levels is great fun, and a touch of well-controlled fill-flash will lift many pictures... I think the D90 does remote flash control too, which is useful.

Expensive game this photography innit? :D
 
Hi Credo,

Thanks for the tip. With the Nikon 50mm F1.8 , what kind of capabilities will that offer - wide enough for decent landscapes and fast enough for low light?
 
Last edited:
I really wouldn't mix a flash with landscape photography as it just doesn't work. You could only light the foreground with the flash, yet doing a long exposure would still give you a more natural and ultimately better effect anyway. Landscape photography requires the use of filters to get the best results. Two main types of filters give you the best results, one being polarising filters that remove glare and reflections with the other being neutral density filters which block light by specific factors, enabling very long shutter times to either do fancy effects like turning water into mist in the daytime sunlight or giving control over bright light sources (moon etc) at night.

Your current lens would be fine for landscape photography as a starting point as 18mm on a crop is around 24mm give or take. You don't "need" to go super wide to take a nice landscape photo. Infact you can use pretty much any lens to do a landscape shot, including telephoto, as long as the subject is interesting.

Flash photography however is a different kettle of fish entirely. Off camera flash is the hardest to learn but the most rewarding out of the flash techniques. A yongnuo 565EX is vastly cheaper than a nikon SB 800 and still does ttl, meaning you won't have to meter for your photo unless you want to take ambient light into consideration, which when indoors at night isn't really on the cards anyway.

Personally if I was in your position, I'd invest in an AF-S 35mm F1.8 lens as it'll give you the equivalent focal length of 52mm on a full frame camera and F1.8 will give you great light low light performance and nice bokeh. If you have any spare cash left over, either get a second hand SB-600/700 if you can cheaply, or if you can't, a yongnuo 565EX as those retail for £95 new. I'd then use the kit lens you have for landscapes and then see if you actually have the need to go wider after you've taken some shots with it.
 
Depending on your budget, i would suggest getting a 35mm F1.8, it's a wonderful little lens and a little wider than the 50mm, but just as good in low light, just dial the iso up and shoot wide open, for a flash, well I've only got a SB-600 so far but it does an adequate job on the few times i've needed to use it, can be used wirelessly with your camera too if memory serves.
if you look around you should be able to net both used for well under 300 notes :)
 
On a D90, in low light, i don't think you'll do better than either the 35mm or the 50mm tbh
and with either of those lenses you'll be able to shoot both landscapes and people etc etc on the same lens.
 
SeraphX said:
On a D90, in low light, i don't think you'll do better than either the 35mm or the 50mm tbh
and with either of those lenses you'll be able to shoot both landscapes and people etc etc on the same lens.
Click to expand...
What is better for landscapes; the 18-105mm kit or the 35mm? I ask because I am going to buy a polarising filter (for one).

If the 35mm is better for landscapes and portraits and low light, does that relegate my 18-105mm to an average zoom lens?
 
Hatter The Mad said:
What is better for landscapes; the 18-105mm kit or the 35mm? I ask because I am going to buy a polarising filter (for one).

If the 35mm is better for landscapes and portraits and low light, does that relegate my 18-105mm to an average zoom lens?
Click to expand...

The 18-105 as you can go wider or further in to get the exact shot you want for landscape shots. You are going to stop it down to around F8-11 anyway so its light performance isn't required for landscape photos anyway.

The 35mm F1.8 is vastly better in low light, especially for portraits. Even wide open its very sharp, making it ideal if you want to try and avoid using flash indoors.
 
James J said:
The 18-105 as you can go wider or further in to get the exact shot you want for landscape shots. You are going to stop it down to around F8-11 anyway so its light performance isn't required for landscape photos anyway.

The 35mm F1.8 is vastly better in low light, especially for portraits. Even wide open its very sharp, making it ideal if you want to try and avoid using flash indoors.
Click to expand...
I am torn... polarize for the 35mm or the 18-105. I guess as the 35 will be my new toy, I'll be wanting to use that all the time.
 
It'll be cheaper to polarise the 35 as the filter size is less than the 18-105 but the later is still a more versatile lens for landscape photography.
 
With all the talk of landscapes, long exposures and filters, no-one has mentioned a tripod. Do you have a good one? If not I recommend this is on your shopping list too, as they are prettly much essential for landscape work. You don't have to spend a fortune, there are models by Manfrotto, Giottos and Velbon (to name a few) that are very good, and not too pricey. I've just bought a Manfrotto 055XPROB and 496 ball head for £160.00, and it's brilliant, I use it for macro and HDR shots. There are more suitable heads for landscape work than a ball head. I know this is not the subject of your post but I thought it worth mentioning!

[Edit] Just seen this thread - a good priced tripod with the right kind of head for landscapes!
 
Last edited:
Hatter The Mad said:
Hi Credo,

Thanks for the tip. With the Nikon 50mm F1.8 , what kind of capabilities will that offer - wide enough for decent landscapes and fast enough for low light?
Click to expand...

It is certainly not a landscape lens, best for portraits. Certain landscape shots are best with moderate telephotos but you specifically wanted to go wide.

You have an 18-105 lens, put that at 50mm and see what that looks like.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Thanks guys. I'm looking at the 35mm F1.8. In terms of low light and 'impact' shots, is there anything better (so I can get a sense of budget)?
Click to expand...

It basically comes down to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/2.8 (make sure i is the newer G lens, AF-S not AF-D. The older AF-D lens will work fine but the newer one is much nicer optically).

You just have to decide what focal length works best for you, 35mm is a bit more versatile. the 50mm tends to be too narrow when indoors and for portraits you are either too far away or get only head + shoulders framed (which is fine). The 35mm lets you get a bit closer to the subject which adds some impact, or you can get easier group shots or more subject in the frame.



Again, use your kit lens at 35mm and 50mm to see what the difference is. These prime lens will look the same with the same field of view and perspective,however they have a much wider aperture allowing shallower depth of focus (allowing you to blur the background better) and let more light in, which is useful indoors.



An offboard flash + 35mm f/1.8 would be a great combo to try something new.



For landscape work the 18-105 is not bad at all. You sometimes need to go wider doing landscape work but there is a big misunderstanding that most beginners have here. A wide angle lens should not be used "to get more in". If you just shoot the same scene wider then you will get very boring photos with tiny details and lots of boring sky, very flat, lifeless and without drama. Wide angles lenses are used to get perspective and a specialist tool that are very hard to use. Wide angle photography is one of the hardest types of photography there is - much harder than standard portraiture with a normal (35-50mm) lens. I use my 70-200mm more than my 10-200mm for landscape work.


That being said when you get a cracking ultra wide angle landscape photo that work well it is an amazing feeling and a great photo, you can add a lot of drama and depth.


For your landscape photography I would invest in a circular Polariser filter and a decent tripod, and then simply make the effort to travel to interesting locations and doubly so, make the effort to wake up before sunrise to get the golden hour. Do plenty of research on the local, find out what time of year is best to shoot that scene, what time of day (sometimes sunset works better than sunrise due to sun angle), where are the best locations to setup your tripod (sometimes you will have to scramble over rough terrain in pitch black to get to the best angle). Then you need a lot of luck, your rarely want a pure blue sky but some broken clouds to catch the first/last rays of sun.


Honestly, the D90-18-105 is a great landscape setup (with filters + decent tripod). Instead of spending money on a lens you might consider taking a holiday to the alps/US/Scottish highlands and exploring the possibilities.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Oops, you're right. Should pick up a 67mm polarizer then.


Yes. So what makes the idea landscape lens?
Click to expand...

I am not sure that there is any such thing as an ideal landscape lens. The most important properties are sharpness and contrast, and even then only when stopped down to at least f/8.0. The 18-105 kit lens succeeds here.

What you don't need is a fast aperture, fast auto focus, sharpness when wide open, distortion is not a killer like for architecture but it is best if it is not too strong.

Almost any focal length is suitable for landscapes, but it is rare to have interesting photos with much impact using the middle range (either side of 50mm) . typically you want to be moderately wide (but not extremely wide), or moderately tele (but not extremely tele). Some scenes either require or work well with ultra wides but most scenes don't.

ultra wide lenses like the 10-20mm (on crop, 14-24 on FF) lenses are often considered landscape lens but are really specialist tools. For sure all pro landscape togs will own 1 or 2 and try to use them as much as possible but they typically are only useful in certain situations. When you do need them nothing else can really work.


If you want to get wider photos with more imoact one thing to consider is stitching. That way you can make large panoramics with plenty of details without everything being squished into the middle of the frame and a huge boring blue sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom