Re: Question about Lenses

Randall Hess Wrote:
=======================================================
> How do you define "better shot" - composition or
> sharpness or exposure or ...?


Folks,

A few thoughts....

Composition is a photographer skill issue. I am convinced that you can learn some technical aspects of good composition (rule of thirds, etc.). To have an "eye" for artful composition is different. That takes a level of talent that I am beginning to believe you have to be born with.

Exposure can be a skill or a function of equipment. Some folks put the camera in an automatic exposure mode (Program, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, etc) and take whatever the camera gives them. Others (like myself) shoot manual exposure and like the results (most of the time, at least) better than what the camera would give us.

Sharpness is a combination of skill and equipment. Proper selection of camera settings and a steady hand will all enhance sharpness. Use a crappy lens and your pictures will never be sharp. You need a good combination of both.

WRT lenses....

As others have said, lenses with wide focal ranges such as 18-200mm, and 18-300mm (sometimes called "super zooms") tend to be compromises. They are wicked convienent (no lens changes...and fewer lens accidents, less dirt on your sensor, lighter camera bag). Unfortunately, they sometimes suffer from softness at one end or the other. If that softness does not bother you, they are a very attractive option. Older designs suffer from the "zoom creep" that David describes. Since that typically doesn't happen during an actual shot, it does not affect your photography. It is just annoying. Newer designs have zoom locks to prevent zoom creep when the lens is not being used.

Lenses with better optical performance, such as pro lenses, tend to have shorter focal ranges, such as 24-70mm or 70-200mm. They also tend to be heavier than consumer glass. They don't extend or retract when zooming, so "zoom creep" is not an issue at all. These lenses do tend to be much sharper, if sharpness is important to you. They also tend to be "faster", with wider apertures, so you can shoot in poorer light. The disadvantage is that you end up with a heavy camera bag, and you might need to change lenses more often, in order to have the most appropriate glass on your camera for a given shot. As John West pointed out, changing lenses, especially in dusty environments (like steam engines), is an e-ticket to crud on your sensor, which can really mess up your photos. The sensor is tricky and somewhat risky to clean, and will cost you $60-80 to have someone do it for you.

I have tried both systems. Since I am a sharpness freak, I have moved from a super zoom to pro-level lenses with shorter focal ranges. I avoid the lens change problem by carrying two bodies, a Nikon Full Frame body with a 24-120mm zoom and a Nikon APS-C body with a 70-200mm zoom. Heavy? You bet. But the image quality (IQ) difference is noticeable. I figure that if I am going to spend lots of money traveling and doing charters at railroads, it makes little sense to be limited by the quality of the equipment that I am taking with me.

When it comes to equipment, it is all a matter of what your priorities are and....how much dough you are willing to spend.

>>>EDIT<<<

Two of the most useful zooms in existence for railroad shots are the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR and its counterpart, the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS. They both cover wide angle to decent telephoto. Unless you are doing people shots, either lens will serve you well more than 80% of the time. Both are Full Frame lenses, which will work with APS-C cameras, but will not provide wide-angle coverage on those cameras. Nikon does make an 18-105mm VR lens for its APS-C bodies that provides the same focal range. Not sure about Canon. The APS-C lenses are typically consumer (vs pro) quality, but would probably satisfy most people.

Just my $.02.

/Kevin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2014 07:34PM by KevinM.