Quote:
Originally Posted by R12ax7
To the OP (and no disrespect to the other posters), but i think Flying Mouse nailed it that you are getting some extremely misleading advice with some of the posts. Putting aside for a minute the "best lens" for shooting cars, I think the root of the misinformation and confusion is what FlyingMouse is referring to when he refers to "FX" (or 35mm) versus "DX". Let me take a stab at further explaining that first:
For so-called "Full Frame" or "FX" cameras the size of the digital sensor in the body of the camera is the same exact size as a single frame of 35mm film (hence "Full Frame"). For any lens you put on that body - lets use a standard 50mm prime lens as an example - the focal length (50mm) is exactly what it says on the lens (i.e., 50mm). Examples of "FX" cameras are the Nikon D610, D750, D810, Df and D4s and the Canon 6D, 5D and 1D.
The size of the sensor in your D3200, a "DX" body, is smaller than its FX counterparts by a crop factor of 1.5x (or 1.6x for Cannon crop sensor bodies). Cameras like the Nikon D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 are all "DX" as are the Canon T3i, T4i, T5i (called EOS 550/650D in Europe), 60D and 7D.
By now you might be asking how this has anything to do with your original question...let's go back to our 50mm lens example:
While the field of view you see through the viewfinder with our 50mm lens attached to an FX body is, wait for it, 50mm, that same exact lens attached to your D3200 will give you a field of view equivalent to 75mm.
You still might be wondering how this applies to your original question and its really in some of the first answers you received. The 24-70mm lens recommendation, while not in and of itself a bad recommendation, will yield a field of view on your camera of 36-105mm. Most would argue that probably isnt the most useful range. In fact, the same crop factor applies to the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera and if you apply it to that lens you get 27-82.5mm; it is no accident that the "standard zoom" range the 24-70mm lens is intended to cover is roughly equivalent to the focal length range of the kit lens your camera came with.
Now back to your original question. As far as better quality there are a number of options depending on if you want a wide angle or the telephoto end. You are correct that the 18-55 kit lens is not top of the line quality and as others have suggested if you plan to move to an FX body in the future you may want to get a lens now that will work on FX in the future (all Nikon FX lenses will work fine on a DX body, but not the other way around).
Wide Angle.
Personally, I like the ultra wide angle lenses (10-20ish mm for DX or 14-24ish on FX); I took the photo below (which kind of makes me cringe now) with a 10-24 Tamron wide angle lens on a D3100 (or possibly D90). As one of the posters above mentioned Nikon makes a similar lens as does Sigma. There arent a ton of options in the ultra wide angle range for DX but the Tamron and Sigma can be had for under $500 while the Nikon is closer to $800. Not sure the nikon is worth the difference in this focal length range. I should note that none of these lenses will work on an FX body should you go that route someday.
One poster mentioned something about things being out of focus with ultra wide angles. Actually the opposite is true, typically at very wide angles more is in focus because you are usually focusing on a subject closer to the camera and therefore are hitting the hyperfocal distance where nearly everything is in focus. What he may have meant was at the edges on ultra wide angle lens you do tend to get a fair bit of distortion. Its a wide open aperture that creates the sharp transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas (i.e shallow depth of field).
Standard.
You should definitely get a 35mm or 50mm prime ASAP! They are cheap and will help you learn a ton about the relationship between ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (~$100) is perfectly fine and you have three other options going up in roughly $100 dollar increments (the 50mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4D and 50mm f/1.4G). If you really want the cream of the crop the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is closer to $1,000 but is well worth it.
If you only want to get one lens and image quality is the number one priority, there are three lenses that will be extremely flexible covering from fairly wide angle through the normal zoom range and have top notch image quality:
1. The new Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 which isnt cheap at around $1,100 (there is also an old version you might be able to find used, but i hear the new one is much better).
2. The Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8, also not cheap at around $800 but fantastic for low light. Not too much at the long end of the zoom range and it might be a bit big/heavy on a D3200 body.
3. Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Even more expensive at around $1,400 (you can find them for half that used), this is the Nikon "professional" grade DX zoom lens.
Telephoto.
As others have said, stay away from the 55-200 and 55-300 if you care about image quality. I dont shoot too much in the telephoto end so i didnt have much need for a long zoom, but i did just pick up the newer version of the 70-300 for $300(!) refurbished from Nikon which is a ton of bang for the buck and that lens is even better on DX. The old 70-200 f/2.8 VR I can be had used for just over $1,000 and is an amazing lens on DX, but you really have to hold that lens in your hand to appreciate how big and heavy it is - especially on a smaller body like the D3200.
|
Just to clear up the bolded section. If you stand the same distance from the subject with a 24mm lens as you would with a 100mm lens, the DOF is going to be only applicable at the near point on the 24mm lens because the far point will be infinity. But who is going to take a photo of a car with a 24mm lens from a distance of 50'? For a 24mm focal length, you'll likely be within 5' of a car to capture an image like you posted above. That makes your DOF at F4, a very shallow 2.1' leaving much of the car OOF.
DOF is just a math equation and if you mount a 24mm lens on the OP's camera choose F4 and stand at 5' (likely distance for that focal length) the DOF is going to be shallow at just over 2' leaving much of the car OOF.
Same camera, same F4, with a 100mm lens at 50' equals a deeper DOF of just over 12' likely getting the entire car in focus. Even if you double your distance from the subject with the 24mm lens, the DOF is still about 20% shallower than that of the 100mm lens.
Distance from the subject is a HUGE factor when calculating DOF. Stand just 40% closer to the subject with the 100mm lens and your DOF will decrease by 60%!
Stand 40% closer with the 24 and the DOF drops from 2.1' to 9".
Decrease the F value to accommodate lower light and the DOF shrinks again. The difference between the two focal lengths is even when you decrease your distance from the subject by 40% the DOF at 100mm is still about 6x larger than at 24mm.
Add a tripod to the 100mm lens, bump to F11 and you're back to a 13' DOF. While the 24mm lens being bumped to F11 will only garner about 3' DOF.
So in some instances your bolded statement is true, but when you factor in distance from the subject, a crucial factor, all the numbers change drastically.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html