[Mr Tonka]

To the thread topic, i like using the 70-200 for auto pictures.

I don't care for wide angle lenses for car shooting, you tend to get some portion of the car OOF because of shallow DOF. And there is typically some type of distorted proportions of the car. Some go for that look and i get the artistic value of it, but i don't prefer it.

[Padfan9]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

To the thread topic, i like using the 70-200 for auto pictures.

I don't care for wide angle lenses for car shooting, you tend to get some portion of the car OOF because of shallow DOF. And there is typically some type of distorted proportions of the car. Some go for that look and i get the artistic value of it, but i don't prefer it.

So if I use a 50-200, I get the same range as the 70-200 but more, so why is it so much cheaper?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Padfan9

So if I use a 50-200, I get the same range as the 70-200 but more, so why is it so much cheaper?

I don't know the exact particulars of why the 50-200 is less expensive than the 70-200, but it likely has to do with autofocus drive motor, maybe image stabiliztion, different number of glass elements within the lens, range of aperture, etc... An example of canon lenses, the 70-200 F2.8L is about $1700, in contrast, the 70-200 F4L is about $500 less expensive and it's just because of the larger aperture.

Lenses are complex and most of the time, if a lens is deemed "cheap" by monetary terms, it's likely cheap in terms of quality as well. There are some exceptions, but for the most part that holds true.

In terms of lenses and bodies; a top end camera body with a mediocre lens will produce mediocre images. Where as a top end lens with a mediocre camera body will create high quality images. So my advice to everyone getting into photography is to shoot with the kit lens until you can afford or bring yourself to allocate the funds to purchase a high quality lens.

High quality glass holds it's value very well. If you bought a top quality lens today, you'd likely be able to sell it for 80% or more of it's original purchase price even in 5 years or so.

[Mik3ymomo]

Mr. Tonka is correct. I started out with a kit lens but the image quality wasn't meeting my expectations.
I even upgraded my camera body before I realized the problem is always with the glass (lens). The pro lenses provide not just a sharper image but I noticed better color, contrast and overall a better and less distorted image.
Also something you have to realize is that most of the magic you see in digital photography is in the editing. You need to become proficient in a good raw editor. Adobe Lightroom is my favorite.
Pro lenses are expensive and most of the time heavier than a consumer grade lens but that has to do with the large Apertures and build quality. Most pro lenses have metal cases vs plastic and also have weather sealing to help keep dust and moisture out.
Pros shoot in all weather and extreme climates. The gear has to be able to withstand those environments and abuse.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

...

What do you suppose the 5DsR will print up to without showing pixels?

Haven't tried it yet, but I'm thinking 72". I've done 50" with the 5D2.

Dave

[R12ax7]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingMouse

There's some contradicting advice on lenses here, but it sounds like the guys recommending 75mm are coming from the 35mm sensor world (FX).

It's true that wide angle adds distortion to your images, but it also gives you a neat perspective that is not obtainable with the longer lenses. I brought both the 10-24 and 70-300 to Europe with me, and I promise you that the 70-300 has not gone on the camera yet.

The wide angle between 15 and 24mm is much more useful on city streets and for landscapes. If you need to fill the frame with your car more, step closer!

I've tried to use my 50mm f/1.4 for city photography and I can tell you that on a DX sensor, it just isn't wide enough.

Stook's suggestion of just getting more practice and staying with the kit 18-55 is a good one. It's actually a really good lens for what you're trying to do on a DX sensor. If you're only looking at something like the 55-200, I wouldn't bother. The 18-55 takes sharper pictures in my experience.

The other lenses mentioned like the 135mm f/2 are EXPENSIVE, and usually heavy. I wouldn't go buying one of those until you've personally figured out what you're looking for in a new lens. If you want faster glass, you might look at the 35mm f/1.8.

Go try lenses in a store before you buy them!

To the OP (and no disrespect to the other posters), but i think Flying Mouse nailed it that you are getting some extremely misleading advice with some of the posts. Putting aside for a minute the "best lens" for shooting cars, I think the root of the misinformation and confusion is what FlyingMouse is referring to when he refers to "FX" (or 35mm) versus "DX". Let me take a stab at further explaining that first:

For so-called "Full Frame" or "FX" cameras the size of the digital sensor in the body of the camera is the same exact size as a single frame of 35mm film (hence "Full Frame"). For any lens you put on that body - lets use a standard 50mm prime lens as an example - the focal length (50mm) is exactly what it says on the lens (i.e., 50mm). Examples of "FX" cameras are the Nikon D610, D750, D810, Df and D4s and the Canon 6D, 5D and 1D.

The size of the sensor in your D3200, a "DX" body, is smaller than its FX counterparts by a crop factor of 1.5x (or 1.6x for Cannon crop sensor bodies). Cameras like the Nikon D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 are all "DX" as are the Canon T3i, T4i, T5i (called EOS 550/650D in Europe), 60D and 7D.

By now you might be asking how this has anything to do with your original question...let's go back to our 50mm lens example:


While the field of view you see through the viewfinder with our 50mm lens attached to an FX body is, wait for it, 50mm, that same exact lens attached to your D3200 will give you a field of view equivalent to 75mm.

You still might be wondering how this applies to your original question and its really in some of the first answers you received. The 24-70mm lens recommendation, while not in and of itself a bad recommendation, will yield a field of view on your camera of 36-105mm. Most would argue that probably isnt the most useful range. In fact, the same crop factor applies to the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera and if you apply it to that lens you get 27-82.5mm; it is no accident that the "standard zoom" range the 24-70mm lens is intended to cover is roughly equivalent to the focal length range of the kit lens your camera came with.

Now back to your original question. As far as better quality there are a number of options depending on if you want a wide angle or the telephoto end. You are correct that the 18-55 kit lens is not top of the line quality and as others have suggested if you plan to move to an FX body in the future you may want to get a lens now that will work on FX in the future (all Nikon FX lenses will work fine on a DX body, but not the other way around).

Wide Angle.

Personally, I like the ultra wide angle lenses (10-20ish mm for DX or 14-24ish on FX); I took the photo below (which kind of makes me cringe now) with a 10-24 Tamron wide angle lens on a D3100 (or possibly D90). As one of the posters above mentioned Nikon makes a similar lens as does Sigma. There arent a ton of options in the ultra wide angle range for DX but the Tamron and Sigma can be had for under $500 while the Nikon is closer to $800. Not sure the nikon is worth the difference in this focal length range. I should note that none of these lenses will work on an FX body should you go that route someday.

One poster mentioned something about things being out of focus with ultra wide angles. Actually the opposite is true, typically at very wide angles more is in focus because you are usually focusing on a subject closer to the camera and therefore are hitting the hyperfocal distance where nearly everything is in focus. What he may have meant was at the edges on ultra wide angle lens you do tend to get a fair bit of distortion. Its a wide open aperture that creates the sharp transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas (i.e shallow depth of field).

Standard.

You should definitely get a 35mm or 50mm prime ASAP! They are cheap and will help you learn a ton about the relationship between ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (~$100) is perfectly fine and you have three other options going up in roughly $100 dollar increments (the 50mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4D and 50mm f/1.4G). If you really want the cream of the crop the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is closer to $1,000 but is well worth it.

If you only want to get one lens and image quality is the number one priority, there are three lenses that will be extremely flexible covering from fairly wide angle through the normal zoom range and have top notch image quality:

1. The new Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 which isnt cheap at around $1,100 (there is also an old version you might be able to find used, but i hear the new one is much better).

2. The Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8, also not cheap at around $800 but fantastic for low light. Not too much at the long end of the zoom range and it might be a bit big/heavy on a D3200 body.

3. Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Even more expensive at around $1,400 (you can find them for half that used), this is the Nikon "professional" grade DX zoom lens.

Telephoto.

As others have said, stay away from the 55-200 and 55-300 if you care about image quality. I dont shoot too much in the telephoto end so i didnt have much need for a long zoom, but i did just pick up the newer version of the 70-300 for $300(!) refurbished from Nikon which is a ton of bang for the buck and that lens is even better on DX. The old 70-200 f/2.8 VR I can be had used for just over $1,000 and is an amazing lens on DX, but you really have to hold that lens in your hand to appreciate how big and heavy it is - especially on a smaller body like the D3200.




Anyway that was long, feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions.

[R12ax7]

Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo

Mr. Tonka is correct. I started out with a kit lens but the image quality wasn't meeting my expectations.
I even upgraded my camera body before I realized the problem is always with the glass (lens). The pro lenses provide not just a sharper image but I noticed better color, contrast and overall a better and less distorted image.
Also something you have to realize is that most of the magic you see in digital photography is in the editing. You need to become proficient in a good raw editor. Adobe Lightroom is my favorite.
Pro lenses are expensive and most of the time heavier than a consumer grade lens but that has to do with the large Apertures and build quality. Most pro lenses have metal cases vs plastic and also have weather sealing to help keep dust and moisture out.
Pros shoot in all weather and extreme climates. The gear has to be able to withstand those environments and abuse.

All +1

[dcstep]

FX and DX are Nikon lingo for full-frame and crop-sensor (APS-C ?). Only Nikonistas use those terms. The rest of the world says, "full-frame" or "crop-sensor".

There's some confusion around crop-sensor, in that there's more that one size, so writers will often specify which they are referring to.

BTW, I shoot Canon, but fully support Nikon, Sony and other system users. There's no single "best" and the spec wars change constantly. Pick one and stick with it.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by R12ax7

[B]... I dont shoot too much in the telephoto end so i didnt have much need for a long zoom, but i did just pick up the newer version of the 70-300 for $300(!) refurbished from Nikon which is a ton of bang for the buck and that lens is even better on DX. The old 70-200 f/2.8 VR I can be had used for just over $1,000 and is an amazing lens on DX, but you really have to hold that lens in your hand to appreciate how big and heavy it is - especially on a smaller body like the D3200.
.

A good 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 is a bread and butter lens in almost all serious kits. All the top brands and third-party brands have excellent examples, with really great IQ.

I don't know why he's saying it's better on DX than FX (crop-sensor than full-frame) since they're known for great IQ and versatiliy.

Here's a typical full-frame, 70-200mm shot at 111mm:

Lauching by David Stephens, on Flickr

It's also a great portrait lens and great for some wildlife.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by R12ax7

To the OP (and no disrespect to the other posters), but i think Flying Mouse nailed it that you are getting some extremely misleading advice with some of the posts. Putting aside for a minute the "best lens" for shooting cars, I think the root of the misinformation and confusion is what FlyingMouse is referring to when he refers to "FX" (or 35mm) versus "DX". Let me take a stab at further explaining that first:

For so-called "Full Frame" or "FX" cameras the size of the digital sensor in the body of the camera is the same exact size as a single frame of 35mm film (hence "Full Frame"). For any lens you put on that body - lets use a standard 50mm prime lens as an example - the focal length (50mm) is exactly what it says on the lens (i.e., 50mm). Examples of "FX" cameras are the Nikon D610, D750, D810, Df and D4s and the Canon 6D, 5D and 1D.

The size of the sensor in your D3200, a "DX" body, is smaller than its FX counterparts by a crop factor of 1.5x (or 1.6x for Cannon crop sensor bodies). Cameras like the Nikon D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 are all "DX" as are the Canon T3i, T4i, T5i (called EOS 550/650D in Europe), 60D and 7D.

By now you might be asking how this has anything to do with your original question...let's go back to our 50mm lens example:


While the field of view you see through the viewfinder with our 50mm lens attached to an FX body is, wait for it, 50mm, that same exact lens attached to your D3200 will give you a field of view equivalent to 75mm.

You still might be wondering how this applies to your original question and its really in some of the first answers you received. The 24-70mm lens recommendation, while not in and of itself a bad recommendation, will yield a field of view on your camera of 36-105mm. Most would argue that probably isnt the most useful range. In fact, the same crop factor applies to the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera and if you apply it to that lens you get 27-82.5mm; it is no accident that the "standard zoom" range the 24-70mm lens is intended to cover is roughly equivalent to the focal length range of the kit lens your camera came with.

Now back to your original question. As far as better quality there are a number of options depending on if you want a wide angle or the telephoto end. You are correct that the 18-55 kit lens is not top of the line quality and as others have suggested if you plan to move to an FX body in the future you may want to get a lens now that will work on FX in the future (all Nikon FX lenses will work fine on a DX body, but not the other way around).

Wide Angle.

Personally, I like the ultra wide angle lenses (10-20ish mm for DX or 14-24ish on FX); I took the photo below (which kind of makes me cringe now) with a 10-24 Tamron wide angle lens on a D3100 (or possibly D90). As one of the posters above mentioned Nikon makes a similar lens as does Sigma. There arent a ton of options in the ultra wide angle range for DX but the Tamron and Sigma can be had for under $500 while the Nikon is closer to $800. Not sure the nikon is worth the difference in this focal length range. I should note that none of these lenses will work on an FX body should you go that route someday.

One poster mentioned something about things being out of focus with ultra wide angles. Actually the opposite is true, typically at very wide angles more is in focus because you are usually focusing on a subject closer to the camera and therefore are hitting the hyperfocal distance where nearly everything is in focus. What he may have meant was at the edges on ultra wide angle lens you do tend to get a fair bit of distortion. Its a wide open aperture that creates the sharp transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas (i.e shallow depth of field).

Standard.

You should definitely get a 35mm or 50mm prime ASAP! They are cheap and will help you learn a ton about the relationship between ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (~$100) is perfectly fine and you have three other options going up in roughly $100 dollar increments (the 50mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4D and 50mm f/1.4G). If you really want the cream of the crop the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is closer to $1,000 but is well worth it.

If you only want to get one lens and image quality is the number one priority, there are three lenses that will be extremely flexible covering from fairly wide angle through the normal zoom range and have top notch image quality:

1. The new Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 which isnt cheap at around $1,100 (there is also an old version you might be able to find used, but i hear the new one is much better).

2. The Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8, also not cheap at around $800 but fantastic for low light. Not too much at the long end of the zoom range and it might be a bit big/heavy on a D3200 body.

3. Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Even more expensive at around $1,400 (you can find them for half that used), this is the Nikon "professional" grade DX zoom lens.

Telephoto.

As others have said, stay away from the 55-200 and 55-300 if you care about image quality. I dont shoot too much in the telephoto end so i didnt have much need for a long zoom, but i did just pick up the newer version of the 70-300 for $300(!) refurbished from Nikon which is a ton of bang for the buck and that lens is even better on DX. The old 70-200 f/2.8 VR I can be had used for just over $1,000 and is an amazing lens on DX, but you really have to hold that lens in your hand to appreciate how big and heavy it is - especially on a smaller body like the D3200.

Just to clear up the bolded section. If you stand the same distance from the subject with a 24mm lens as you would with a 100mm lens, the DOF is going to be only applicable at the near point on the 24mm lens because the far point will be infinity. But who is going to take a photo of a car with a 24mm lens from a distance of 50'? For a 24mm focal length, you'll likely be within 5' of a car to capture an image like you posted above. That makes your DOF at F4, a very shallow 2.1' leaving much of the car OOF.

DOF is just a math equation and if you mount a 24mm lens on the OP's camera choose F4 and stand at 5' (likely distance for that focal length) the DOF is going to be shallow at just over 2' leaving much of the car OOF.

Same camera, same F4, with a 100mm lens at 50' equals a deeper DOF of just over 12' likely getting the entire car in focus. Even if you double your distance from the subject with the 24mm lens, the DOF is still about 20% shallower than that of the 100mm lens.

Distance from the subject is a HUGE factor when calculating DOF. Stand just 40% closer to the subject with the 100mm lens and your DOF will decrease by 60%!

Stand 40% closer with the 24 and the DOF drops from 2.1' to 9".

Decrease the F value to accommodate lower light and the DOF shrinks again. The difference between the two focal lengths is even when you decrease your distance from the subject by 40% the DOF at 100mm is still about 6x larger than at 24mm.

Add a tripod to the 100mm lens, bump to F11 and you're back to a 13' DOF. While the 24mm lens being bumped to F11 will only garner about 3' DOF.

So in some instances your bolded statement is true, but when you factor in distance from the subject, a crucial factor, all the numbers change drastically.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[R12ax7]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Just to clear up the bolded section. If you stand the same distance from the subject with a 24mm lens as you would with a 100mm lens, the DOF is going to be only applicable at the near point on the 24mm lens because the far point will be infinity. But who is going to take a photo of a car with a 24mm lens from a distance of 50'? For a 24mm focal length, you'll likely be within 5' of a car to capture an image like you posted above. That makes your DOF at F4, a very shallow 2.1' leaving much of the car OOF.

DOF is just a math equation and if you mount a 24mm lens on the OP's camera choose F4 and stand at 5' (likely distance for that focal length) the DOF is going to be shallow at just over 2' leaving much of the car OOF.

Same camera, same F4, with a 100mm lens at 50' equals a deeper DOF of just over 12' likely getting the entire car in focus. Even if you double your distance from the subject with the 24mm lens, the DOF is still about 20% shallower than that of the 100mm lens.

Distance from the subject is a HUGE factor when calculating DOF. Stand just 40% closer to the subject with the 100mm lens and your DOF will decrease by 60%!

Stand 40% closer with the 24 and the DOF drops from 2.1' to 9".

Decrease the F value to accommodate lower light and the DOF shrinks again. The difference between the two focal lengths is even when you decrease your distance from the subject by 40% the DOF at 100mm is still about 6x larger than at 24mm.

Add a tripod to the 100mm lens, bump to F11 and you're back to a 13' DOF. While the 24mm lens being bumped to F11 will only garner about 3' DOF.

So in some instances your bolded statement is true, but when you factor in distance from the subject, a crucial factor, all the numbers change drastically.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Agree with all of that. My real point was the opposite end of your point above. While DOF shrinks with both smaller aperture and increased focal length, as focal length shrinks, (i.e., ultra wide angle lens ~14-18mm 35mm equiv./ 10-12mm DX) DOF increases to the point that you can practically set your focus to infinity with a 16mm lens and from almost any distance to subject you are going to have everything in focus.

I guess the exception to this rule with an ultra wide angle might be if you wanted to take a detail shot of say a side view mirror where part of the fender is in the foreground. In that case the near fender will be out of focus but everything beyond the mirror should be in focus.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by R12ax7

Agree with all of that. My real point was the opposite end of your point above. While DOF shrinks with both smaller aperture and increased focal length, as focal length shrinks, (i.e., ultra wide angle lens ~14-18mm 35mm equiv./ 10-12mm DX) DOF increases to the point that you can practically set your focus to infinity with a 16mm lens and from almost any distance to subject you are going to have everything in focus.

I guess the exception to this rule with an ultra wide angle might be if you wanted to take a detail shot of say a side view mirror where part of the fender is in the foreground. In that case the near fender will be out of focus but everything beyond the mirror should be in focus.

With it's many complexities, it's no wonder this hobby can hold the attention of so many for so long.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by R12ax7

Agree with all of that. My real point was the opposite end of your point above. While DOF shrinks with both smaller aperture and increased focal length, as focal length shrinks, (i.e., ultra wide angle lens ~14-18mm 35mm equiv./ 10-12mm DX) DOF increases to the point that you can practically set your focus to infinity with a 16mm lens and from almost any distance to subject you are going to have everything in focus.

I guess the exception to this rule with an ultra wide angle might be if you wanted to take a detail shot of say a side view mirror where part of the fender is in the foreground. In that case the near fender will be out of focus but everything beyond the mirror should be in focus.

Another clarification. DOF actually grows as the aperture "shrinks with both smaller aperture" at any given focal length. Maybe you were speaking of f-number, not actual aperture size. For instance, f/4 is twice as large as f/8 and f/16 is a small aperture, offering deep DOF.

Even with ultra-wides, f-stop matters. With my 15mm, I can focus from about 12" to infinity at f/16, but at f/2.8, I need to watch both foreground and background for focus and can exercise selective focus by moving fore and back from the subject.

I think the confusing language comes from the fact that larger f-numbers are actually smaller apertures in physical area.

Another point of confusion is that some people say things like, "great DOF" when they talk about bokeh. Bokeh refers to the character of the OOF areas of a shot. When I talk about deep DOF, I'm talking about sharp focus from foreground to background. In the 21st Century, DOF has become a slang term for bokeh, in some quarters, causing even more confusion.

Dave

[R12ax7]

Originally Posted by dcstep

A good 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 is a bread and butter lens in almost all serious kits. All the top brands and third-party brands have excellent examples, with really great IQ.

I don't know why he's saying it's better on DX than FX (crop-sensor than full-frame) since they're known for great IQ and versatiliy.

Here's a typical full-frame, 70-200mm shot at 111mm:

Lauching by David Stephens, on Flickr

It's also a great portrait lens and great for some wildlife.

The older nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is a bit better on DX because the corners are a lot softer on that lens but on DX that won't matter since you are mainly using the center of the lens. On FX the new version (or the f/4 version) are generally sharper across the frame.

Otherwise agree with everything you said including the third party options.

[dcstep]

We don't have those problems with the L-series Canons.

[The Wind Breezes]

This topic has a lot of really bad advice. Take a photography class, or you'll make a lot of mistakes you won't even know about. You need to learn how to compose and take good pictures or your DSLR will just be making a lot of expensive snapshots. You have to know how to visualize the scene to make all the lines just right, which takes a lot of practice. Extremely minor adjustments to camera position make a huge difference for your composition. Don't fool yourself that you already know about this stuff, because if you did, you wouldn't have made this thread.

As far as what lens(es) you need, it depends on how far away from the car you want to be shooting and how much you want to capture. Keep in mind, though, a pro can crush an amateur with a DSLR using just his iphone, all day long.