Help a noob get into photography

[Eride]

So the past year I spent a fair amount of time overseas. Africa, South America and Europe. I borrowed my sister in laws Nikon d80 and fell in love with photography.
I always check in the photography corner and drool over many of your shots. It is time that I actually build myself a setup and I need your help. I am planning on purchasing this week this is what I was planning on getting to start. Feel free to offer suggestions on what else I might need or some different opinions on what I might want to get to start.

d90 body $695
Nikkor AF-S DX 35 mm f1.8G $259
Nikkor AF 50 mm f1.8D $141.41
Extra Battery $80

I will also need a bag, probably a backpack or something that would be good for traveling, any suggestions?

What about filters and lens hoods? Anything I am missing? Thanks so much everyone can't wait.

[Xtrema]

You may want to include a zoom lens in there if you're into travel photography. The zoom comes in handy when you are confined to a single point but need to get close to an subject.

[Eride]

I was seriously considering a zoom but want to learn how to properly frame and use primes before I make the jump. What would you suggest for a solid zoom to consider?

[blitz]

The Nikon 16-85mm seems to get high reviews.

An ultrawide is always nice. Nikon 10-24mm and Tokina 11-16 seem to get the best reviews.

[Xtrema]

I got the Tokina 11-16, great wide angle to have for reasonable price.

But wide angle is only good at tight spaces, like interior and cities with tall buildings.

I don't know how good this lens is but I have been eyeing this as my travel lens.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...d_vr/index.htm

28-300. Damn. Beyond photog gurus, your take?

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Eride
I was seriously considering a zoom but want to learn how to properly frame and use primes before I make the jump. What would you suggest for a solid zoom to consider?

Coming from a guy who loves primes more than anything, I would still suggest a decent zoom lens first. It's not like you have to keep the zoom long-term, but it will give you more freedom when you are beginning and not hold you back from any photo opportunities that could help you improve. For a while I had JUST a few primes versus a zoom and I found some situations to be complicated simply by the minimal selection of different focal lengths I had in my bag despite being able to move my feet, because sometimes you simply cant move enough.

My tip would be to get a decent zoom, and a cheap 50mm f/1.8 or similar and go from there. The prime will teach you how to properly use primes and low depths-of-field, whereas the zoom will give you a bit more freedom for walking around. Some of my favorite shots were from my cheapest cameras or cheapest/plastic zoom lenses. Just my $0.02.

Edit: To add, you couldn't ask for more than the great group of guys/gals here and their photography experience. The advice, critique and technical knowledge from others here on beyond have helped me more than any other photo forum or google search has.

[Eride]

Originally posted by Pollywog


Coming from a guy who loves primes more than anything, I would still suggest a decent zoom lens first. It's not like you have to keep the zoom long-term, but it will give you more freedom when you are beginning and not hold you back from any photo opportunities that could help you improve. For a while I had JUST a few primes versus a zoom and I found some situations to be complicated simply by the minimal selection of different focal lengths I had in my bag despite being able to move my feet, because sometimes you simply cant move enough.

My tip would be to get a decent zoom, and a cheap 50mm f/1.8 or similar and go from there. The prime will teach you how to properly use primes and low depths-of-field, whereas the zoom will give you a bit more freedom for walking around. Some of my favorite shots were from my cheapest cameras or cheapest/plastic zoom lenses. Just my $0.02.

Thanks so much man, on my travels last year I shot with an 18-200 and it was great for sure loved the zoom. Only reason I thought about starting with primes is I have some really good friends who are ultra pro here in town who suggested it. Man it's hard not spending big bucks right off of the start, exciting though.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Eride
Man it's hard not spending big bucks right off of the start, exciting though.

Haha, tell me about it - its worse than a crack habit.

[EvolizePhoto]

Eric. Feel free to give me a call for some suggestions.

[msommers]

For a travel lens and something easy, the 18-200 isn't that bad. It pretty much covers everything.

[Eride]

Here are a few of the shots I took last year. First time I have ever shot with a dslr. What suggestions would you guys make to improve my technique? Taken with a D80 and an 18-200.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Eride
[IMG] Edinbourough 049 EDIT by Ground_Dog, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG] London and Scotland 217 EDIT by Ground_Dog, on Flickr[/IMG]

For it being the first time using a DSLR you did very well. From some of the other first-timers I've seen, they end up taking better pictures with their cheap P&S than with their brand-new DSLR. Were you using a priority-mode, or an Automatic? (and don't be embarassed if you used the big green box).

The only major c&c I will give you on the two shots I posted above is to pay more attention to running lines and square corners. If you are using photoshop for a final edit I suggest using "filters -> distort -> lens distortion" and using the vertical perspective sliders. It will give you the ability to straiten lines that are curved naturally by your lens angle and body position. There are other little things that I could mention (like taking the second photo while keeping your horizon level), but keeping this technique in mind (or to ensure straight lines initially while taking the photo) will help improve the end-result.

Also, in the first photo I quoted there is some obvious CA (chromatic-abberation) visible on the top edges of the building. This can also be fixed in "lens distortion".

[Eride]

Awesome thanks for the suggestion! I had never edited any pictures before the other day I downloaded Picasa but it seems pretty basic. Can you post a shot as an example of what you mean exactly? I messed around with many of the different modes, but primarily shot in Auto.
Also how do I link from Flicker without the links and stuff?

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Eride
Awesome thanks for the suggestion! I had never edited any pictures before the other day I downloaded Picasa but it seems pretty basic. Can you post a shot as an example of what you mean exactly? I messed around with many of the different modes, but primarily shot in Auto.
Also how do I link from Flicker without the links and stuff?

Click "view all sizes", and then right click on the image size that you want and select "copy image url". Then just enter it within a ["img][/img"] (without quotation marks) and you're good to go. I'll give you an example in a few minutes using one of your photos.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Eride

[IMG] London and Scotland 217 EDIT by Ground_Dog, on Flickr[/IMG]

Here is a quick edit using only the "filter -> distort -> lens correction" tool (+rotation fix). I'm not saying shaft-straight lines suit every photo, but 90% of the time it improves a shot imo. If I had of been working with a full-res example it probably wouldn't have lost as much sharpness as my edit did. Regardless, here's the edit - yours on the top, mine on the bottom:


» Click image for larger version

» Click image for larger version

The whole key concept is that the more you get right while initially taking the photo, the less time consuming post-processing will be. Every little bit makes a difference when it comes to the initial composition - not to say you should spend 10 minutes before each shot thinking about it, but it will come more naturally with time.

[Eride]

Picked up my gear yesterday! So pumped!

Here are a couple of my first shots.





One thing I am curious about... Since I have both the 50mm and the 35mm are they really all that different? Should I return the 50mm and purchase something that will give me a different look and angle for now? Suggestions?

[Pollywog]

IMO, the difference between my 28mm and my 50mm is quite substantial and they are definitely suited for different shots. I would keep them both.

[EvolizePhoto]

Dont sell lenses you will regret it. If I've learned one thing its that you will deeply regret it lol

[quazimoto]

That's not true at all with lenses, not remotely. You'll find each and every person is very different in their own style with what lenses work best for them. You'll find some lenses you love to death and others you barely use.

That being said I would say to stick to the 35mm over the 50mm as much as possible. The 35mm gives you the most realistic viewing area similar to the human eye perspective. I would say 35mm is my personal favorite for shooting on the wider end of things as it's stupidly easy to know what you are shooting at that focal length.

I would take a 35mm over a 50mm any day of the week.