nikon 35mm f1.8 prime vs 18-105 kit lens?

O

oldson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
201
Name
simon
Edit My Images
Yes
i am struggling to take decent shots of the inhabitants of my marine aquarium!

i was wondering if a new lens would help?
something like the 35mm mentioned above.
as a direct comparison against my kit lens (18-105), set at 35mm, would the prime produce a sharper image?

i am a complete novice, so any advice would be appreciated.
thanks
 
primes generally produce better sharpness than zooms, but there isnt much wrong with the kit lens you have. I would suspect its more likely the aquarium glass or even camera shake than your lens.
Can youpost a pic with exposure details then we can probably help a bit more.

That said the 35 mm is a great lens (its on my list) well worth getting.
 
I'd agree with Dave the issues will be with the Aq glass and lighting.
I suggest either a darkcloth as used by the old field camera shooters or preferably hold the camera with the lens touching the glass and dead square on to it, this helps with camera shake and reduces flare and reflections though it will make framing your subject harder.
In addition to the water and the glass being totally clear you need to ensure good lighting.
When we visit the aquaria at Kew gardens we get far the best pictures with the camera held against the glass (though obviously aquarium size and lens focal length plus min focusing distance can mahe this tricky).

A circular polariser may be an alternative but you'll lose a lot of light.
John
 
A piece of glass inside the tank to restrict the movement of the fish front to back helps.
 
phototuition said:
...or preferably hold the camera with the lens touching the glass and dead square on to it, this helps with camera shake and reduces flare and reflections though it will make framing your subject harder.
Click to expand...

Try a rubber lens hood.
 
I think you might be better off with a macro lens. The 35mm prime will be sharper than the zoom but it can't focus very close. Also I use a flashgun off to one side so that it doesn't reflect off the glass.

IME you need a lens which focuses fast as the fish move around so quickly. I am very happy with my 60mm micro AF-S.
 
Tracer said:
I think you might be better off with a macro lens. The 35mm prime will be sharper than the zoom but it can't focus very close. Also I use a flashgun off to one side so that it doesn't reflect off the glass.

IME you need a lens which focuses fast as the fish move around so quickly. I am very happy with my 60mm micro AF-S.
Click to expand...

have tried my sigma 150, which i am now selling, i think 150mm is too long.
am also considering a "nifty- fifty" as i have seen others produce more pleasing results with these.
the 50mm f1.4 is nearly double the price of the 35mm, though.
 
The nifty-fifty is good - sharp and cheap, but doesn't focus as close as a macro, obviously, so you might find yourself cropping a lot. It depends on the size of your fish, of course. My tanks are tropical freshwater and most of the fish are small - biggest is a Siamese Algae Eater.

I find the pop-up flash isn't powerful enough. It would be worth getting something like a SB600.
 
Tracer said:
The nifty-fifty is good - sharp and cheap, but doesn't focus as close as a macro, obviously, so you might find yourself cropping a lot. It depends on the size of your fish, of course. My tanks are tropical freshwater and most of the fish are small - biggest is a Siamese Algae Eater.

I find the pop-up flash isn't powerful enough. It would be worth getting something like a SB600.
Click to expand...

the sb600 is on my wishlist.
the lens is proving more difficult to decide on.

my biggest fish is about 4" long. using my current macro (against the glass) means i cant get the whole fish in shot.
 
oldson said:
the sb600 is on my wishlist.
the lens is proving more difficult to decide on.

my biggest fish is about 4" long. using my current macro (against the glass) means i cant get the whole fish in shot.
Click to expand...

If you use a SB600 off camera and positioned to one side, you won't get reflections off the glass and can then stand back a bit.

TBH I think if you get a flash you would manage all right with your existing lenses. The SB600 turns up regularly in the classifieds for around £160. Just one caveat - using the CLS on my D70s there was a slight delay before the flash fired. On my D300 there is no delay - I don't know how it would be on your D90, but Flash-in-the-Pan sells cheap TTL cords if you need one.
 
also turn OFF all the room lights to cut down reflections

I found using a TTL cord - from FITP - with SB400 "above" the tank surface illuminated the dorsal area which usually is brightly coloured

you'll need 6pairs of hands !
 
thanks for the replies, everyone.
gonna get myself a used 50mm f1.4 (i believe the older "af" model will auto focus on my d90), a used sb600, and also a rubber hood.(need to sell my sig 150 macro first, though)
hopefully this will sort me out.
cheers
 
Using the 50mm f1.8 I managed to pick this one off the other week at Deep Sea World. Handheld, no hood (although have now bought a rubber one for the purpose) and a bit of luck me thinks :)

4565692265_0f9a73def0_o_d.jpg


As can be seen in the lower left portion here, very clean glass is important too :|

You can also see the narrow DOF on this so maybe the 1.4 might not be best???
 
Ka$h
nice shot.
i must admit to knowing very little about photography. could you elaborate on your final comment, and possibly suggest an alternative?
cheers
 
ka$h said:
Using the 50mm f1.8 I managed to pick this one off the other week at Deep Sea World. Handheld, no hood (although have now bought a rubber one for the purpose) and a bit of luck me thinks :)
Click to expand...

I like that a lot, nice picture ka$h.
 
Sorry, looking at 'Nemo' here, he's in focus until you get round the back towards his tail. In very low light like I had, the aperture was open @ f2.5 creating a shallow depth of field and hence sending his tail out of focus. If you are wanting the whole lot in focus for your fish then you will need a greater depth of field and therefore a smaller aperture. If you were to go for the 1.4 (smaller aperture) you would be looking at an even shallower depth of field when fully open. If you can afford it, get the 1.4 but remember you don't want it fully open ;)

Thanks for the comment guys
 
ka$h said:
Sorry, looking at 'Nemo' here, he's in focus until you get round the back towards his tail. In very low light like I had, the aperture was open @ f2.5 creating a shallow depth of field and hence sending his tail out of focus. If you are wanting the whole lot in focus for your fish then you will need a greater depth of field and therefore a smaller aperture. If you were to go for the 1.4 (smaller aperture) you would be looking at an even shallower depth of field when fully open. If you can afford it, get the 1.4 but remember you don't want it fully open ;)

Thanks for the comment guys
Click to expand...

did you just contradict yourself or am i going daft?
 
can i just confirm, that i understand the following

smaller number = larger aperture, leading to quicker AF but shallower DOF!!

sorry i know this is basic, but i dont want to buy the wrong lens.
cheers
 
sounds like you got it :)

So a f/1.8 lens is 'better' than an f/4, which is better than f/5.6
 
ok
just to complicate things.....

aside from snapping my fish, i would also like to try my hand at landscapes.
i had thought i would need 2 lenses for these topics.
is there a recommendation of a zoom lens that would fit the bill for both subjects.
 
Why not use your 18-105 for landscapes?
 
have managed to get a used sb600.
will see how i get on with that and kit lens .
will hold back on buying another lens for now.
thanks for the advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top