40 mm lens mistake?
May 28, 2013 22:17:19 #
I've been doing some research and asking lots of questions with and getting lots of responses on here. I decided to upgrade my lens instead of purchasing a new camera. I went to Best Buy and read about the different lenses. I compared the 35mm, 50mm and 40mm for Nikon. I ended up buying the 40mm because the summary was closer to meet my needs. Got home and tried it out, and most of the photos were horrible. I know I need some more practice with it, but I'm thinking it might not be for me. I'm using it on a Nikon 3100, I don't know if that is making the difference. Does anyone have any advice? I'm thinking about exchanging it for the 35mm
May 28, 2013 22:23:30 #
What did you expect it to do for you ?
You were wanting to do portraits in your earlier posts.
The 40 is NOT a good choice for that.
You were wanting to do portraits in your earlier posts.
The 40 is NOT a good choice for that.
May 28, 2013 22:23:36 #
I recent;y took a photography course. The instructor said for my Canon cropped frame 7D the 35mm lens is the equivalent of the naked eye. I opted for the 50mm due to the reviews I have read about the quality of the lens. If you are doing portraits and need to get a tight shot the 35mm may cause you to get in your clients "personal space" and make him/her uncomfortable.
Just my two cents...
Just my two cents...
May 28, 2013 22:25:20 #
May 28, 2013 22:27:19 #
The 40mm F2.8 is a Macro lens. At almost $100 less money the 35mm F1.8 is usually a better choice. A 40mm macro makes you get REALLY close to get a true 1:1 macro image.
May 28, 2013 22:41:53 #
May 28, 2013 22:42:46 #
I will post 2 of them. One of them I love and one I would've loved if it wasn't ruined. I do see part of my problem. I need to practice with manual mode.
The first one was taken in Aperture Priority, f/2.8, 1/1600sec, no flash
The second one was taken in Manual, f/3, 1/50sec, no flash
The first one was taken in Aperture Priority, f/2.8, 1/1600sec, no flash
The second one was taken in Manual, f/3, 1/50sec, no flash
May 28, 2013 22:45:19 #
The description of it said it was perfect for portraits and everything else I was doing. I guess the description was wrong.
May 28, 2013 22:46:26 #
JessJus2009 wrote:
The description of it said it was perfect for portraits and everything else I was doing. I guess the description was wrong.
The first looks nice, while the second was shot in Manual at the wrong settings. I'm confused.
May 28, 2013 22:47:17 #
JessJus2009 wrote:
I will post 2 of them. One of them I love and one I would've loved if it wasn't ruined. I do see part of my problem. I need to practice with manual mode.
The first one was taken in Aperture Priority, f/2.8, 1/1600sec, no flash
The second one was taken in Manual, f/3, 1/50sec, no flash
The first one was taken in Aperture Priority, f/2.8, 1/1600sec, no flash
The second one was taken in Manual, f/3, 1/50sec, no flash
So exactly where did you come up with those manual settings anyway? F3 and 1/50 sec in daylight would need an ISO of around 8 to properly expose. You chose to intentionally overexpose using those settings and even if you had shot in RAW its likely there is too little info to process anyway.
I suggest a book by Brian Peterson called "Understanding Exposure" if you insist on shooting in manual. Once you understand the exposure triangle you will get much better results, but until then you cannot force your camera to take a good image if you set it so far off proper exposure.
May 28, 2013 22:47:42 #
I'm just not sure what went wrong the second time and why it was so over exposed when I didn't even use a flash. I am still learning manuel, it is just out of my comfort zone, but I am working on it.
May 28, 2013 22:48:34 #
JessJus2009 wrote:
I'm just not sure what went wrong the second time and why it was so over exposed when I didn't even use a flash. I am still learning manuel, it is just out of my comfort zone, but I am working on it.
Read MT Shooters reply, it will help.
May 28, 2013 22:49:36 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
Your shutter speed was way to slow. Too much light hit the sensor and hence you are way overexposed.
May 28, 2013 22:49:37 #
JessJus2009 wrote:
The description of it said it was perfect for portraits and everything else I was doing. I guess the description was wrong.
Yep, normally you want something longer.
I think someone told you that earlier... Hmmm, who was that?
Oh, yea. That was me.
Can you return it?
May 28, 2013 22:50:43 #
I think I will stick to Aperture Priority while I learn more about manual. But even some in Aperture Priority came out bad. I need to study my settings more. I am considering the 35mm though. I'm just not sure the 40mm is what I am looking for. It is a lot better than my 18-55mm when used properly. I also have a 55-200 that I am going to start using more often too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.