Sorry I have to ask (probably a basic question), but what do you mean by the last part about the focal plane?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New to DSLR, What's a Good 2nd Lens for WDW?
- Thread starter blueboxdoctor
- Start date
Sorry I have to ask (probably a basic question), but what do you mean by the last part about the focal plane?
Just wondering, have you posted any pictures online (flickr, here, etc...) using the Tokina in WDW? Just curious to see how they look.
NeedMoreMickey
Well-Known Member
I have a Canon Rebel and I purchased a EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS to go with it. Love this lens, most of the time I don't bring my zoom lens t the parks.
Gig 'Em Mickey
Well-Known Member
Wow, there are a lot of pictures there, will look through them, thanks for the link.
Gig 'Em Mickey
Well-Known Member
The depth front to back of your picture that is in focus. Depth of field. Check the site below. Basically on a d3200 at 35mm 1.8 5 ft from your subject your focal plane is about 6 inches deep starting a little less than 5 feet away from you. 10 feet it would be about 18 inches deep. It's fine for most things, just realize if you're really in tight and trying to fill the frame pay attention to your aperture. Like a group shot. Might not want it at 1.8 because somebody's probably going to end up out of focus. Increasing your aperture number (making the aperture smaller) increases your depth of field. Shallow DoF is how you get the soft out of focus backgrounds. Deep DoF is how you get those great landscape shots with foreground and background all in focus.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Read up on Depth of Field as above is a pretty simplistic explanation. I really liked a book called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson Great book for a beginner. I've read it through twice. Once when I was first learning, and again recently as I have a little more experience. He has several books and they're all great.
Thanks, I'll check out what he has written. I didn't realize depth of field is what you were referring to, I recently had to read up on it some for my cousin's graduation, as I knew I'd have to be doing some group shots. Was definitely interesting to learn about and helped me get some decent shots that everyone liked, so that was cool.
Gig 'Em Mickey
Well-Known Member
Depth of field is the appropriate word. Not sure what I was thinking with focal plane. I guess the narrow plane in your frame running parallel to your sensor that is in focus. Anyway, depth of field.
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
To the OP - 2 questions. The first is just how much are you willing to pay for quality images. The second is whether you want to be intimate with you subject or need a lot of reach. Realize that park shooting could very well be only a little of what you do with the lens.
But also realize that reach is also of very limited use in the parks. Like some others here, I say go wide. Like a Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8. Much faster than some of the other units noted here. And has a nice wide zoom.
Wide is a GREAt feature to have in the parks. Can be close to subjects and still have items at least somewhat in focus. And a little less susceptible to things like shake.
But also realize that reach is also of very limited use in the parks. Like some others here, I say go wide. Like a Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8. Much faster than some of the other units noted here. And has a nice wide zoom.
Wide is a GREAt feature to have in the parks. Can be close to subjects and still have items at least somewhat in focus. And a little less susceptible to things like shake.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Just keep in mind that I have used a few different bodies and lenses in that gallery...but I never hide my EXIF data so you can see what was used by looking at the info on the right pane under the image
MOST of these that were taken prior to Feb 2015 were taken with the 11-16 tokina
I agree about going wide, though, unfortunately on my current budget I'm not sure if I want to drop the money needed for the lens you suggested (though, I don't doubt it's a higher quality lens), speaking of, not sure if you have any opinions on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II. Plus, I have always enjoyed scenic shots and am looking forward to getting a new perspective on them (the rest of the family is more into taking pictures with people in them, so in the past we have had both bases covered).
Not sure if I'm right with what you mean by reach, but with the 35mm I'm fine with getting in closer and I can see myself using it often outside of vacation, so that one is pretty much a given.
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
Between the two you mentioned, I would get the Sigma. That's if what we're talking about here is what you might call travel photography. YMMV, but I usually reserve my primes for specific situations or under more controlled circumstances than walking down Main Street or in the queue for ToT.
Again, you may have a totally different style where the 35 would be killer. Both would be a good choice. So would a basic 50/1.8 though.
Again, you may have a totally different style where the 35 would be killer. Both would be a good choice. So would a basic 50/1.8 though.
Out of curiosity, any reason the Sigma would be the lens of choice between the two? Also, YMMV stands for?
I'm thinking the 35mm will be fine since I'm contemplating getting one of those camera back packs (my mom is also thinking of getting a DSLR for the trip, not sure why, I think it's because she's been looking for a new hobby, which is cool, so we can both have the lenses at our disposal). Actually, with her having a DSLR, we can have at least two different lenses with us at all times if we desired.
Gig 'Em Mickey
Well-Known Member
The sigma would have a little more versatility when shooting outside due its range, and I think you'd really appreciate the wide angle. However, with f4 being it's largest aperture you're going to have a hard time indoors/evening and you can forget dark rides. The 35mm at 1.8 you'll have no trouble getting those low light shots, but again the frame can be a bit tight. But the image quality is outstanding. It's incredibly sharp. Since you are on a crop sensor I wouldn't get the 50mm 1.8 as I think it would be way too tight for most shots you sound like you're going to want. It would be equivalent to 75mm on your camera. Check the link below. You are on a DX format body. Select that and then adjust the focal length slider to see the difference of the focal length of the lenses you're looking at.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/#DX
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/#DX
NowInc
Well-Known Member
I have owned both the Tokina and the Sigma and can say with great confidence that the Tokina wins. Not that the Sigma is a bad lens (its great, actually). but I found the Tokina to focus faster, perform better, and was a bit sharper. It pained me to have to sell it when switching formats...It was almost always on my body everywhere I went.
These are the things I like to hear, especially since they're the same price so I'm going to go with whichever has the better overall quality. I'm pretty sure the Tokina is the way I am going to go after reading more reviews of it around the internet.
Oh cool, thanks for the link, will check it out (I looked into the DX format a couple days ago, so I'm still learning, but did rule out the 50mm because of it). The f stop is part of the reason the Tokina is winning out for me, as I want to get some nice evening shots (there are already a couple EPCOT shots I'm thinking about).
Gig 'Em Mickey
Well-Known Member
Yep. The Tokina is awesome. I really think it will serve you well on your trip. You could always rent if you're still a little unsure. I've rented several lenses before I kinda figured out what I'd like to get. The tokina is definitely on my list.
I'll have to look into renting lenses (will probably do that when I go for a telephoto at some point, but not for a while). It's somewhat difficult now since camera stores don't really exist around where I am (they all seem to have gone out of business) so I've been relying on reviews, forums, and groups on flickr to try and figure it out. Luckily, at least here people have been helpful.