I am looking for suggestions for a good "walk around" lens for my d5100. I currently have a Tamron 17-50mm that I initially loved, but I can't quite determine if the image quality is really bad because of that lens or my camera. If it turns out to be the lens, can anyone give me a good all purpose lens that would be similar? Nikon makes a 17-55 f2.8 I can get new for $1300. Was hoping for something less than $1000. Found a used for $830 through B&H. Any experience on buying used lenses? That makes me a little nervous as well. If I am having image quality issues, can anyone educate me on whether it would be primarily the camera or the lens that would be causing it? I am getting very frustrated. I have the Nikkor 50mm and 85mm, and they seem to be ok, for the most part, but are still sometimes hit or miss. Thanks!
good "walk around" lens
- Thread starter rece2000
- Start date
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Post some pictures with the D5100 that you think are bad and also include the EFIF data and wheither you shot in RAW or JPEG and what software you used for post processing.
here are 2 pictures. i have not done anything to either of them in post processing, besides changing to jpeg and reducing the size for easier uploading. the first picture was taken with my tamron 17-50mm lens: shot in RAW, program mode, f7.1, 1/200 sec, ISO 200, at 17mm.
the second picture was taken with my nikkor 85mm: shot in RAW, manual mode, f3.2, 1/100 sec, ISO 500.
to me, the quality looks better with the nikkor lens when I zoom in, even if it might be slightly 'soft'.
I know I need to add some sharpening when shooting in RAW, but when I do, the quality doesn't really improve. I took some pictures at a wedding and shot with the RAW+JPEG FINE and, to be honest, I did not see a difference in the 'sharpness' or quality of the picture between the two. From a distance, I think these both look fine, but when I zoom in, that is where I see the difference. Not sure if these samples will be helpful or not. I tried to find the best tamron example I could. I hope this works. First time inserting photos...
I did try testing that once and thought I had it figured out, but when "out in the field", so to speak, it didn't seem to matter. It was still hit or miss. I don't know that I can keep a lens straight with "it works good at this aperture, at this focal length, and no others". I need a lens that works well at all, or most, settings.
thank you. i will look into that lens as an option...
i did post some pics... see post above. i am hoping they come across right though. i am zooming in on my computer to see how sharp/clear they are. i think they all look fine "from a distance", but when I get prints or zoom in, that is where I notice a difference. Just not like my pictures used to be.
i will look into the 18-105. i can get that for a good price, especially if i can sell my tamron at a good price. thanks.
i focused on her left eye in the second one. what do you mean by 'missing the focus'? i had a feeling it wouldn't come through. you need to be able to zoom in on the first one to see the difference. should i crop in on the faces and repost them?
Post a link to the full-originals, not reduced images with no EXIF data.
I'm sorry, I am new at this. How do I post a link to the originals? I tried inserting the original RAW images, but they would not go through.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
You have to do post processing when you shoot RAW. These look fine considering you have not processed them correctly. There is no problem with these pictures. I spent 2 minutes processing them from already resized files.
Do a simple conversion to JPEG, then post them on a hosting site like Flickr or PhotoBucket.
I can see the hair on her forehead in the second shot is much much sharper than her eyes. That tells me you missed focus. You may have tried to focus on the eyes, but something changed.