Photos: [M.H]

Hey,

Posted up the finals from my shoot last week.  I loved the final product and I hope you do too!  Without further adieu:

Portrait - 35mm

Portrait - 50mm

You can see other photos on my Flickr 

Photos: [E] in Studio

Hey,

Thought I would take a quick break from app reviews and post some of the photos form my shoot I did over the holidays with a very lovely model.

We made a made dash to my studio and I am glad we did because we got some amazing shots as well as another Flower Series (FS) shot.  A very fun day and we got some very good images I thought.

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

There are more (different) on Flickr in the set with this model's other photos from the last shoot we did.  The sharpness of the 50mm f/1.4 D never ceases to amaze me.  

Hope you enjoy the images!

Photos: Sarah's Flower Series Extras

Photos: Sarah's Flower Series Extras


Just did a shoot with the lovely Sarah and the shots turned out really well.  It was the first real studio shoot I've done in my studio (unless you count me sitting in front of my magazines as one).  I was really impressed with the photos and since my review of the 35mm DX f/1.8 lens is so popular, everyone should be happy to hear the 35mm will be my new studio lens for full body shots.  Personally I want my 50mm to be my main portrait lens but it is not wide enough to get the full body in the frame so the 35mm it is.


I was really happy with these shots and I hope you are as well.  I will start showing my Flower Series photos when I have enough of them to be called a series.  Two doesn't count as a series yet.  So in the mean time here are some other shots form the shoot!

Portrait - 35mm f/1.8 G 

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

Portrait - 35mm f/1.8 G

Thank you for viewing and I hope you enjoyed them!

Lens Re-Review: 50mm f/1.4 D

Lens Re-Review: 50mm f/1.4 D

So I just remembered something about this lens from my country shoot I did a while back that I forgot to blog about.

As I was going through the photos from the shoot I noticed a handful of them were a little soft.  It looked nice however nothing was really in focus which wasn't so great.  I found all the slightly fuzzy photos and noticed they all were taken at f/1.8.  So this is what I believe led to the soft photos and now I am avoiding using this lens at f/1.8 which is fine since I use it at f/1.4 or f/2.8 - f/4 range.  I noticed at f/2 it has also fine.  I have not shot a lot at f/1.6 however I do know f/1.8 was not sharp for some reason.

Do I like this lens any less?  Nope.  I have no problem not using it at f/1.8 and I still love this lens.  If you have not read my review of the 50mm f/1.4 D you should.

Thought you should know,

Tom

Focus: Which Lenses To Start With?

Focus: Which Lens To Start With?

Well to start off on a wrong foot, I actually can't tell you the perfect lens for you.  But I can tell you what good lenses are and why and go from there.

So I will discuss this post as if you are starting with your DSLR and you're looking for another lens to go with your kit lens.  And since I use Nikon, this will be Nikon oriented since that is what I know.  So most start with a 18-55mm or 18-105mm.  These are decent lenses however are limited in quality of glass and maximum aperture size.  So usually this is noticeable in dark settings with the limited aperture ability of the kit lens.

So, what could you get next?  Well that mostly depends on what you want to shoot so I can't help you there but I can help with some good ideas that are lenses you wont want to sell later.  The two lenses I would recommend is a 50mm or 35mm.  Both these lenses are lenses I know people don't replace unless it is for a f/1.4 version.  Also these lenses can be cheap, and they are small.  They are prime lenses so they do not zoom, so that means you have to walk around a little more to compose.  This trains you a little more with composition which isn't terrible since that helps you especially at this stage.

So the 50mm's.  There is the 50mm f/1.8 D, and the 50mm f/1.8 G.  I used the 50mm f/1.8 D and it was great.  It is an amazing lens and it is cheap.  Less than $200, and for the quality of the lens that is quite the bargain especially when you are starting out.  So the 50mm is a great portrait lens so if you take photos of people a lot this is a great lens.  Since it is a prime lens they are very sharp and have very wide apertures.  The 50mm f/1.8 G I am sure is also a good lens.  I have never used it but the 50mm is classic, Nikon wouldn't mess that one up.

Now if you want to capture a little more in your photos the 35mm is less zoomed in.  It would capture a person and their environment better, or a small group of people.  Now of course you can walk closer or further away with either the 35mm or 50mm but with the 50mm I found myself backing up into walls and tables to get more than one person in the photo.  So the 35mm is a good "do it all" type lens because it is wide but not too wide to take portraits still.  The 35mm f/1.8 G is a good lens and very sharp.  My full review of the lens you can find here.  It isn't a very expensive lens but it is more than the 50mm f/1.8 D. 

So if you are not interested in a prime, well that's too bad but there are other lenses.  An 18-200mm is a good lens as a kit lens as well but that is a lens that you usually do not keep.  It again is a variable aperture zoom which doesn't fix the aperture constrictions you have with your last kit lens.  I have a friend who is a photographer and they bought a 18-200mm as a kit lens and now wants a new lens.  It is a good lens but is a "jack of all trades but a master at none."  So usually you replace it with other lenses that are masters.

Another option now for DX or cropped sensor cameras is the 40mm Micro (macro) lens.  It would be like the 35mm but you could experiment with macro photography as well.  This lets you take photos of flowers and bugs etc.  I have never used it and it is relatively new but it is a lens to think about for sure.  I love macro myself so I got the 105mm VR Macro but that is a fairly pricey lens.  Or was when I bought it.

There are some lenses a lot of people are tempted to get for a second lens like the 55-200mm.  Again, it is a beginner lens which works I am sure but you will want to sell it in a year so you may just want to save your money and get a better lens now.  The advice that is always tossed around is to invest in glass (lenses) instead of cameras.  Lenses usually hold their value more and are replaced less often.  So don't be afraid to invest in lenses.  It is usually worth it.  The lenses that do decrease in value are the starting kit lenses because people usually buy them and then try to sell them within the year so there are a lot of them floating around.

So usually try to get a fixed aperture lens.  They help you with low light and they usually are better than a variable aperture lens.  The less expensive ones are usually primes like the 35mm f/1.8 G and 50mm f/1.8 D or G.  I hope that helps.  I just wanted to get some of that information out there to help photographers starting out and trying to get a second lens.

Focus: Depth of Field

Focus: Depth of Field


So I mentioned Depth of Field (DoF) earlier in Part I, on exposure using aperture.  Changing your aperture settings of your lens changes the depth of field in your photos.  Now, what is depth of field?  It is the width of area in your photo that is in focus.  The larger your aperture (or smaller the aperture number) the smaller DoF you have.  So I demonstrated this using my portrait shot of my friend at f/1.4 (wide open/large aperture) with my 50mm f/1.4:

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

So, I mentioned that the area of focus is just on her eye that is closest to the camera.  That is a very small or "shallow" DoF.  Another example of this would be some of my hand held macro work.  I need to use a wide open aperture to allow the most amount of light in to allow myself to have a fast enough shutter speed to not have any blur.  Some of my macro photos demonstrate a very small DoF which happens when you shoot macro photos with a wide open aperture.  This example of the dragonfly demonstrates just how small of a DoF we are talking:

Dragonfly - 105mm Macro VR

The depth of field in this photo is roughly the width of this dragonfly's head.  And when you look into the background it is completely blurred out.  This blurred out background is call bokeh.  Bokeh is not so much a cool hip trait for dragonfly portraits but more so for people portraits.  The photo above has very nice creamy bokeh.  The bokeh or out of focus background allows portraits to pop out a little more.


In landscape photography, as I also mentioned in Part I, needs a small aperture (or large aperture value) to create a large DoF so everything in the landscape is in focus.  Here is an example:

Boardwalk - 17-55mm

This photo just demonstrates that the depth of field is good because you can still make out the grass in the background and the boards going off into the distance.  In landscape photos you want the most detail you can get usually.  However in this photo the background isn't completely sharp because I focused more on the foreground because I wanted that area of the photo to be sharpest.  This was so that you looked at the bottom of the boardwalk first because it was sharpest, and then were led to the top of the photo.  The boardwalk gave your eyes a path, literally through the photo.  So you don't always have to follow photography rules especially if you have a game plan with what you are doing.

Depth of Field can be changed by Tilt-Shift lenses.  These flatten the DoF a little so that the DoF is more horizontal than just vertical.  This allows landscapes to have more detail because the DoF is flatter to the horizontal axis.  I personally have not used a TS lens so I have no examples and the photos would just look like a very sharp landscape photos from the foreground to background.  

Other manipulation of optics or in post-processing can blur the photo more to make the aperture effect on the DoF different.  Lensbaby lenses alter the effects of the DoF to blur areas of the photo while keeping certain areas of the photo in focus.  Again I have not tried one of these lenses so I am not an expert witness but that is the gist I have gotten from seeing the photos from those lenses.

So DoF can be a factor that makes or breaks a photo.  But just like most rules in photography, they can get tossed out the window from time to time.  It's art, who cares.  I am sure you can find an audience to like your photos even if you don't do the normal things with DoF.  But more often than not, DoF is a good thing to pay attention to since it is a large-ish part of photos.  

And with that I will wrap up my focus on DoF, I hope that helps and again if you have any questions or things you would want me to cover on my blog, do not be afraid to send me off a e-mail @ tomhouston7@gmail.com.

Focus: Aperture. My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part I

Focus: My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part I


I cracked and decided to write posts on aperture, shutter speed and ISO.  I finished the reviews of my gear so I decided to move on and try to pass on more knowledge.  I am not an expert on exposure but I will share what I know.


First I will start with aperture however it is hard for me to explain these components separately since sometimes they are link together at times.  So aperture is the diameter of the lens diaphragm that is responsible for controlling how much enters to the film/sensor.  My best way to explain it is, the aperture of the lens is like the pupil of an eye.  So in low light or dark situations, the aperture can to be opened up to allow more light to enter just like a pupil dilates to allow more light to enter the eye.  And vice versa, in bright situations, the aperture closes to decrease the amount of light so the photo is not blown out.  The pupil also constricts in bright situations so you don't burn your eyes.  Aperture allows the photographer to control how much light the lens lets in which can brighten or darken the whole photo.


So now it gets a tad bit confusing.  Sorry, there is no way around it.  The lens, not the camera, is responsible for the aperture.  The camera can control the aperture of the lens but it is the lens that dictates the range of apertures available to you.  So on a lens, the aperture value is denoted by the f-value.  So the value is written as "f/__."  So for example, my 50mm has an aperture value of f/1.4.  So now the confusing part.  The smaller the f-value number, the larger the diameter of the diaphragm.  So f/1.4 can open up larger than a f/2.8, and an aperture of f/2.8 can open up wider than a f/4 etc.  I will go into aperture values and what is good at the end but first I will cover what these numbers are used for and how aperture affects photos.


The f-stops are in numerical values so that you can determine how much you are increasing or decreasing the light by.  So one stop of light difference, is if you go from f/2.8 to f/4.  So what that means is if I change my aperture from f/4 to f/2.8, I am letting in twice as much light through my lens.  It is just math and calculations on figuring out the numbers and how many whole/half/third of a stop difference there is between values.  I wont go into the math of it cause I find it boring and I never think of that in my head ever while I am taking photos.  To get by and use your aperture of your lens(es) well, you just need to understand how it works and the smaller the number, the large the diameter and vice versa.  It is go to know the approximate differences of the apertures so you roughly know how much more light you are letting in or keeping out.  However I have never taken a photo and said "man, I need to triple the amount of light being let in.  I need to change my aperture from f/2.8 to f/8."  I just know "okay, my photo is dark (or underexposed) so I need to let in more light so that means I have to increase the diameter of my lens," and therefore go to a lower f-value to achieve that.  And the opposite to a photo that is too bright where I have parts of the photo blown out or over exposed.


Now, I think it is important to briefly go over what other effects aperture has on photos other than just increasing and decreasing light.  The aperture selected also dictates the amount of area in the photo that is in focus which is called Depth of Field (DoF).  So, what on Earth does that mean?  Good question.  The Depth of Field or DoF is the width of the area of focus in the photo.  So I will use my photos to explain.  A small DoF would have a very little amount of the photo in focus.  Here is a portrait I took that has a very small or shallow DoF:

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

So as you can see, the background is out of focus, her shoulder is not really in focus but just a thin sliver of the photo is sharp/in focus, which is in the same plane as the eye closest to the camera.  You can also tell this by looking at the hair laying on the front side of her shoulder.  If you look carefully, the hair goes from in focus to out of focus very quickly because the DoF, or the width of the area in focus is very small.  This time, the numbers line up... the smaller the aperture, the smaller the DoF.  So that shot above was shot at f/1.4, so the DoF was extremely small.  This is good for portraits for multiple reasons but one of them being is that you are focusing on the model and not any of the trees or the road in the background.  Also most of the face is out of focus which makes the skin look nicer and just makes portraits overall more flattering. 

While a small aperture value has a small DoF, a large aperture has a large DoF.  Example:

Cape Forchu, NS - 17-55mm

This photo was shot at f/11 which has a large DoF which is more suited for landscape photography because you want to have everything you can in the photo in focus.  The photo has the foreground of rocks that are in focus, to the lighthouse in the background.  If this was shot at f/2.8 which is the largest diameter the 17-55mm can go to, the foreground would be fuzzy if I focused on the lighthouse.  That isn't really wanted for landscape photography.  Well, I sure didn't desire it in this photo.  For myself personally I try to have my landscapes all in focus because I want my landscapes to look exactly like it was when I saw them.

Different aperture values have different uses.  Sometimes you have to use a wide open aperture (the smallest number your lens can do) to let in the most light if it is in a dark room for instance.  Sometimes on a bright sunny day you have to close your diaphragm right down so your photo doesn't look like you are being summoned to heaven (completely white everywhere or blown out).  The larger the minimum aperture, the more versatile the lens is because you have the option to gather a lot of light if you need to.  However which a larger diameter diaphragm, comes a larger diameter glass and larger pieces of glass makes a larger price tag.  

Lenses and apertures.  Kit lenses usually have a variable aperture.  This means the aperture has a range depending on the focal length of the lens.  My kit lens was the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.  Important part of the name for this post's purpose is 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6.  So at 18mm, so the widest angle of view, the lens could have an aperture of f/3.5 and up.  At 105mm, the lens could have an aperture of f/5.6 and up.  This means, as you zoom out from 18mm to 105mm, the lens needs to have a smaller diaphragm to make the optics work.  So as you zoom out, you lose some ability to let in as much light.  This for a lot of normal scenarios is manageable, however there are some cases where you do not want your aperture to change on you if you zoom.  So fixed aperture lenses are in my opinion and I believe almost everyone else's, are best.  Currently I have all fixed aperture lenses which means I can keep my lens at whatever aperture I want and zoom in or out and have it stay at the value I picked.  For an example I will use my example from the portrait above to help pull some of this together hopefully.  I wanted a shallow DoF in that portrait, so I set my lens to f/1.4, the widest the diaphragm in that lens can go.  If it was a zoom lens, and I decided to zoom in, and the aperture would changed then I would have a completely different look than the one I wanted.  More of the photo would be in focus which may not be flattering, and more of the background would be in focus which would make it more distracting.  Another example would be in a dark room which was actually the reason I bought a 50mm f/1.8 D.  I was at a dinner and didn't want to use a flash because it is a little obnoxious to do in a restaurant.  My kit lens couldn't let in enough light so all my photos were blurry and the colours were off because the shutter was open too long.  So that is another occasion to "need" a larger aperture or fixed aperture.  

Smaller apertures allow for the backgrounds of photos to be more out of focus which makes them less distracting and allows for some photos to just look better.  This is called "bokeh" which people pronounce as "bo-kay" or "bo-kah."  I don't know what is the right way to say since people say it differently.  I will cover that in another post since this one is already long enough.  So stay posted for my take on bokeh later.

So to sum up a little:

Aperture is the size of the diaphragm of the lens which dictates the amount of light that is let in as well as the DoF.  Which is like the pupil of an eye dilating and constricting depending on the light conditions.  And the Dof (Depth of Field) is the amount of area of the photo that is in focus which is controlled by the aperture.  The aperture is donated as f-values like f/2.8 which is fairly large diameter to f/16 or f/22 which is a very small hole.  So the smaller the number, the larger the diameter and vice versa.  Then for DoF, it is the smaller the f-value, the smaller the DoF and vice versa.  Fixed apertures that are small numbers usually are best because they can allow you to let a lot of light in compared to larger apertures.  Variable aperture lenses that have a variable range depending on the focal length of the zoom range make it more difficult to harness the light needed for photos sometimes especially indoors.  

The larger the aperture, the more light that you have access to which allows you to have a faster shutter speed.  I managed to keep shutter speed mostly separate from aperture which is nice because it makes it simpler that way but shutter speed will be the topic of Part II.

I hope that is simple and easy to understand.  Personally when I was getting a handle on all of these things I read multiple articles on the same topic so that I could build a strong understanding of it.  Also I went out and practiced shooting a lot which helps to have the "hands on" part of learning as well.  So if some of this is confusing or written poorly I am sorry but ask any of your questions in the comment section or read other sites on aperture and things will hopefully become clearer.  And don't forget to try it for yourself!

Here is a link to a video I made for my Youtube Channel on this topic.

Update: 50mm f/1.4 D

I have been using the 50mm f/1.4 D a lot lately for portraits.  It is definitely growing on me from my last three shoots.  It is a great lens that lets you see each eyelash on 100% crops.  I have noticed colours can be a little off when shooting into the sun but that is normal.

From the quality of the portraits I took with the 50mm f/1.4 D, I am thinking of looking into the 85mm f1.4 D.  I love the bokeh of the 50mm f1.4 D however I know the 85mm is the lens to get for bokeh and portraits.

I am trying to get more creative with photo shoots than just beauty shots now.  Not that I don't like what I have done so far, I just want to try to keep getting better.  I took two photos lately that I really like that I think have a little more depth than some of my other portraits.

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

I just thought I would write an update about the 50mm.  It is a very good lens and I am very happy with it.

Lens Review: AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8 IF ED

Lens Review: 17-55mm f/2.8 DX

Thoughts and Opinions: 

This is the newest piece of glass of mine.  Weighing in at 754g, this is a big piece of metal and glass.  Being a pro DX lens, it is built to a very high standard.  This was the only pro DX wide angle zoom with a fixed f/2.8 aperture in Nikon's line up.  I always try to buy FX lenses so that if I do ever upgrade I can have lenses for a FX body.  The 17-35mm was too expensive and the 16-35mm I don't think would suit me needs (however that has changed). I needed a lens can do many things really well, but if I wanted perfection I could use my 105mm Macro VR or my Tokina 11-16mm.  So the 17-55mm was really my only option for a fixed aperture zoom lens for a D90 body.  

So, sadly this lens was the only one that fit my wants/needs so I got it.  I didn't feel comfortable getting the lens just because it was the only one in that category but oh well.  Also it didn't help that it was a lens that was just shy of $1,700.  So onto how I think about this beast.

I have only had this lens for about a month or so now and so far so good.  In the first week of owning this lens I did a photo shoot and left this lens on my body the whole time.  I wanted to see what this thing could do as well as it was outside portraiture and I wanted to get more background in the portraits.  It worked well, and it was nice to be able to not have to move my body forwards and backwards to frame the shot.  So, I love primes and I know zooms can make photographers lazy because they don't have to move however it is handy sometimes.  I was laying on an old railroad bridge taking a portrait shot.  I needed to move closer however I had my iPhone in one pocket, and my apartment keys in the other.  So if I started wiggling around to move back and forth on the wooden beams, I could see either my keys or phone going for a swim.  So that was a nice change from my primes.  

As I am writing this, I am currently in northern Quebec and on the drive up here I past the Rupert River.  Other than Niagara Falls I have not seen rapids/water falls that big.  So I used my Tokina 11-16mm first but then hiked on the other side of the river to a look out that is right beside the falls.  There I used the 17-55mm.  It was very good I found.  It was nice zooming out and getting the whole falls or the bridge in the distance as well as zooming in on the rainbows in the mist.  

It is a useful lens for me so far which is good since I paid a lot of money for the glass.  Honestly it may be a little over priced however for myself in the long run it is worth it.  However this is one of those lenses for me that I need to use for a couple of years before I feel it is 100% justified.  

I find that it is sharp but compared to my 50mm and 105mm the zoom isn't as good.  It is very good for a zoom however when you do a 100% crop on a photo with the 17-55mm, you can see it isn't as sharp as a prime.  However I knew this before I got the lens that I would not have the same sharpness as my primes.  Nevertheless it is a zoom lens so you do gain some other benefits for losing a little sharpness.  

This is a big lens, well for me that is.  Compared to my other lenses, I think this is the bulkiest.  With lens hoods on, the 105mm still is longer however with the lens being fairly long with a 77mm filter, so it's big.  So it is a small workout carrying it around however it is not a problem personally.  I have the MB-D80 battery grip for my D90 so it does help balance things out nicely.  

The zoom ring is smooth however it isn't uniform.  There are sections where you do have to give it an extra push to get the lens to zoom which corresponds usually between 35-55mm and 17-24mm in the zoom range.  The extra energy is to get the lens barrel to extend.  I am sure as I use the lens more, this will not be that noticeable as well as starting off for me it isn't that large of an issue.  So I am not too worried about the zoom ring.  The focus ring is nice as smooth as well and the focusing is very quiet.  The speed is also fast on my D90 which is good. 

I may update this review more because I just realized this is more of my "initial thoughts and opinions."

Usage:

I have used this lens for portraits as well as for landscapes and it has performed well.  I have used it on a hike as well but there wasn't a lot of subject material for photos so the photos were decent.  However all and all this lens as performed well to my standards.

Pros:

- Good work horse lens

- Fixed f/2.8

- Pro glass

- Fairly sharp

- Manageable amount of distortion at each end ( 17 & 55 )

- Weather sealed

Cons:

- Expensive

- VR could be handy

- Some people could find it heavy (but some people like that)

Just a side note thing:  I personally find the lens hood more cumbersome than the lens.  The hood it really wide so it doesn't fit in my bag being inverted on the lens.  So I have to not bring my flash if I want to being the lens hood.  I will try to figure an easy way to transport the hood however as I said to a buddy of mine, it might just be worth it to wear as a bracelet  to and from shoots.  It is large enough I can fit my tokina's 11-16mm lens hood partially in the 17-55mm's hood.   

Sample Images:

Portrait - 17-55mm

Bridge over Rupert River, Quebec - 17-55mm

Flower, Eastmain, Quebec - 17-55mm

Conclusions:

So far this a great lens that fits into my kit really well.  I enjoy looking forward to using it at events, parties and such as well as outside portraits again.  It has performed well when I have used it, and I knew it wasn't going to be as sharp as a prime.  As I mentioned earlier, it is maybe a little over priced for the lens but I will hopefully have it for a long time so I don't see myself not getting my money's worth. 

I have not reached any large conclusions as of yet with this lens other than I am excited to use it more.  When I do I will pass more of a judgement on the lens.  So I guess stay tuned in for that.

I have a Flickr Set for this lens where I put my favourite photos of the lens.  This is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomjbh/sets/72157626557136368/

Rating: Overall: 4/5

Landscape: 4/5

Portrait: 3.5/5

Events: 4/5

Overall: 4/5

Here is my link to my video review of this lens:  http://youtu.be/SLtmMbAeaQA

Lens Review: AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G

Lens Review: Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G

Thoughts and Opinions:

Well to be honest, I don't love this lens as much as the other lenses I have.  Not to say it isn't a good lens, it just doesn't tickle my fancy.  I bought it for doing events in smaller areas where I couldn't back up more and use my 50mm.  The 35mm is good for the events but after I bought it I realized thats all I wanted to use it for.  Which is decent however I like having versatile lenses, which some would argue the 35mm is.  However for my use, the focal length doesn't quite do it for me in other type of photos.

It is a sharp lens, very quiet focusing.  It is also made for DX cameras which means it is cheaper than most lenses.  I believe Nikon released this lens so that it could be more affordable for beginners because the lens construction isn't anything a semi-pro or pro photographer would drool over.  The body is plastic and the focusing ring is a little wobbly.  

This lens is light weight and small which is nice.  I now have run out of room in my camera bag for my gear so I now have to choose what I bring with me place to place.  The 35mm usually gets the cut.  However I do have a new lens that kinda replaces it which is why.  I have the 17-55mm so the 35mm will only get used if I don't want to lug around the 17-55mm at a event.  Or if I am afraid the 17-55mm may get damaged, then I will bring the 35mm.

So there isn't anything really wrong with this lens really.  The build construction could be viewed as a little poor on Nikon's part however I understand they wanted a more inexpensive lens to be available for starting out photographers.  So it is a good lens for someone who is just starting into photography and wants a versatile lens however for my use and what perspectives I like, it doesn't fit for me personally.  I have another cousin that is into photography and he got the 35mm f/1.8 as well.  I believe He does like it and I can add a link to his Flickr Page at the end of the review.

Usage:

I got it solely for event photography when my 50mm wasn't wide enough.  I took it on a winter hike as well, just to give it a shot to see what it could do.  I have also used it for portraits to give it a shot there as well.  I was very sharp in all the photos however the perspective wasn't doing it for me.

Pros:

- Small

- Light weight

- Sharp

- Very quiet and fast focusing

- Inexpensive

Cons:

- Plastic construction (just a little to cheap for me but it works)

And as a personal note it isn't a perspective that does it for me at 35mm.  

Sample Images:

Portrait - 35mm

Portrait - 35mm

Tree, winter hike - 35mm - Unedited

Flickr Set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomjbh/sets/72157625847201926/

Conclusions: 

It is a good lens, does a nice job with photos however it isn't the right perspective I wanted.  That doesn't mean it is a bad lens minus the semi-cheap construction.  I hope after you read all this you don't think this is a bad lens.  It isn't, but just for what I like doing and what perspective I like it didn't really do it for me.  I guess there were sometimes that I did like having the 35mm perspective when I didn't want a flattening of the perspective.  The top photo probably wouldn't look as good if it was taken with the 50mm.  I think I may be being to hard on this lens but it didn't "wow" like my others.  I was thinking about selling it when I got the 17-55mm however I did decide to keep it to see what happens.  If I do end up using it more, I will rewrite this review.  

It is a good lens minus the semi-cheap construction I mentioned.  I have tried the 35mm out with everything I do however out side of events, I don't really use it.  But that is just from my personal taste in the lens' perspective.  So it could be a very good lens, or even one of my best however I just have not loved the perspective other than at an event.  

Cousin's Flickr account (With the 35mm):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56368755@N07

Second review thoughts (December 3rd, 2011):

So I have noticed that this is my most viewed post and therefore thought it would be useful if I added my recent thoughts about this lens.  Just recently I build a studio in my apartment.  This allows me to do a lot more photography since it cuts down on travel time and such if I want to just do a simple shoot.  My 50mm f/1.4D is not wide enough to get full body shots so I started using my 35mm for portraits if I need a wider view.  So from using it in a couple of shoots I am impressed with it's picture quality.  I still don't like the build quality since it is a pretty cheap feeling lens with the plastic and semi lose focus ring.  But it delivers the sharp photos so I guess there are no complaints there.  I can't say I love the perspective it gives but it is perfect for the size of my studio.  Here are some recent photos from my 35mm in the studio:

Portrait - 35mm f/1.8 G

Portrait - 35mm f/1.8 G

Thank you for reading my blog and if you have any questions please don't hesitate to e-mail me at tomhoustphotography@gmail.com.  Also if you are interested in visiting my photography website to see my top work, please visit it here: www.tomhoustonphotography.ca,

Review of the 35mm f/1.8G on my youtube channel: http://youtu.be/Ke4Avj5bwOA

Tom

Rating: Overall: 4/5

Full Body Portraits: 4/5
Low Light: 4/5
Overall: 4/5

Lens Review: AF 50mm f/1.4 D

Lens Review: 50mm f/1.4 D

Thoughts and Opinions:

This is a magnificent lens.  As mentioned in my 50mm f/1.8 D review, I sold the f/1.8 so that I could upgrade to get the f/1.4D.  And was it ever worth it.  

The lens has a nice shallow depth of field and it is very sharp at f/1.4.  Focuses nice, fast and quietly on my D90.  I have had no major complaints with it at all.   It is nice and small so it isn't a scary lens to have on your camera for shy portraits.  Also it fits quite nicely in my camera bag.  

I like this lens because it a a great focal length for what I do.  On a D90 it is more like a 75mm which is nice for portraits but you can still get 1-3 people in the photo.  It is very good for having at an event where you need a small lens to be discrete.  It is also good for portraits for the same reason.  

It doesn't come with a lens hood which is sort of annoying but you just have to make sure no one bumps into it.  I still use my lens hoods inside so that it helps prevent people touch the front of my lens.  Which has happened before at a party.  I looked down at my lens after showing some of the photos I had taken. One of the girls in the group helped to hold my camera and left a nice finger print on the filter..  As for blocking out sun rays, I have not used it outside yet so I am not sure what the flares and ghosts are like.  If they are bad I will edit this post to discuss outside use for this lens.

Usage:

I have taken portraits with this lens as well as used it at events.  It is a good lens for being discrete as I have mentioned and it is a very sharp lens.  It is great for low light scenarios.  I used this lens at a concert and it did really well to capture the light.

Pros:

- Small

- Very sharp

- Smooth and quiet focusing

- Large aperture

- Lightweight

Cons:

- No supplied lens hood

Sample Images:

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4D

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4D

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4D

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4D



Flickr Set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomjbh/sets/72157626016219574/

Conclusions: 

All and all a very good lens.  It is a step up from the f/1.8 D however if you do not have the extra money to upgrade to the f/1.4 D, then just get/keep the f/1.8 because it is a very good lens as well.  But if you do have the extra money it is a good upgrade.  I thought it was worth it.  Also it is my only f/1.4 glass at the moment and it is very nice.  

So if you do portraits or events and need a small fast lens this is a good one.  However for the reasons I  love it are drawbacks during a large event because you will be able to take large group shots with the 50mm.  

A 50mm as most people would say is a classic lens that everyone should have.  It is a sharp, simple and fun lens to have.  You can use a 50mm for pretty much any type of photography.  


Rating: Overall 4.5/5


Portrait: 4.5/5
Low Light: 4.9/5
Overall: 4.5/5