|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #35
Take some shots where the flash is the main light, if these are soft the lens may be the issue, if they're sharp it's a settings problem 
A telephoto is nice to have, and often aren't bad for macro with the right adaptor
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #34
I just find my pics aren’t quite as sharp as I’d like them. I know it’s more than likely the settings and I’m rubbish  But just thinking if it’s perfectly suited to my d3300.
I do also need another lens that can do anything kids wildlife trophy shots etc if you have any suggestions
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #32
What do you want it to do mate?
The 35 is perfect for trophy shots, you won’t get much better without spending £££.
If it’s just for general use... I find myself using my telephoto far more than anything these days. Keeps me occupied on the bank, at work and basically whenever I’m out and about
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #32
A good zoom 
Without another lens to compare, you could do a mock catch shot in the garden, then move the camera 50% further, open up to 1.8 and then crop to match framing. It won't be perfect but will give you a visual idea of the difference
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #31
Haven’t got the kit lens mate. Point taken regarding lighting, I hadn’t thought about that. What lens would you get to accompany the 35
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
Have you still got a kit lens to try it out?
The cost is a big difference, I don't know about sharpness or focussing speed but small differences just from the change in focal length will be
A slight difference in subject isolation(background blur)
Your camera will have to be 50% further away
A very slight difference in perspective, if you were on the same spot with the same fish and someone took pics with a 50 and a 35 with the same framing you'd notice the difference but generally most wouldnt (smaller fish, bigger ears with the 50)
Also for lighting, the extra distance will use a bit more power, while lessening the difference in brightness between you and the background (assuming your using a flash on camera)
Personally if I was to buy a second prime I'd go more than one step in focal length
Edit, I was getting mixed up with canon, the cost isn't much of a factor with nikon
|
|
|
|
Would I see any benefits on my d3300 by changing from a 35mm to 50mm prime.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
Don’t forget about the 40mm pancake for the canon, it’s a cracking little land 😉😉
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
Totally agree. Used to have a canon with the nifty fifty and now got a Nikon with the 35. Much prefer the latter especially as i shoot portrait
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #24
If your at 10feet with the 50 you'll be at 7feet with the 35 for the same framing, can make a huge difference in a tight swim.
Quite a difference in look too.
The aperture range we want for catch shots is almost covered by the kit lens anyway, the primes only really give you better quality and better focussing in low light. I prefer a f2.8 zoom for fishing, DSLR versions are a bit too big tho
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #24
I would say it would be a marginal difference between the two.
If you do an image search for 35mm compared to 50mm you will see what I mean by this.
50mm is a good size for trophy shots, but a lot of people prefer 35mm but as I say there's not a great difference.
The F stop is very important though.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the help people much appreciated👍👍
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #23
I have a fixed 50mm on my Nikon which blurs the background really nicely
Would a fixed 35 mm enable me to get closer too the fish ie wide angle
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2
On a full frame sensor, I'd agree on a 50mm. On a cropped, a Prime of about 28mm to 35mm seems to be the sweet spot for decent bokeh. I use a canon 28mm f/2.8 for self takes with my 90D. I've got a 32mm f/1.4 on my smaller M50 and that's very good too.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #19
Yeah definately.
I bought a Nikon camera last Autumn and also got the 35mm Prime 1.8 lens which was recommended by people on this forum.
It's perfect for the purpose.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I usually take a 50mm prime Nikon, shoot at f5.6 with a bit of distance between subject and background. Plenty of practice and you'll be fine..
Edit: on a full frame sensor D750
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #19
That 35mm 1.8 would be perfect for what you want.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #3
I have a Nikon D5000
Is something like this from eBay suitable?
224074082443
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers fellas- will buy one shortly
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Without upgrading equipment, to blur the background and keep a reasonable depth of field ie the fish and you in focus you must have good separation between the subject and the background. Shooting wide open is f1.8 will give too little focal plane. Don’t mistake out of focus area’s with blur. You should be shooting at say f3.5 to f5.6 not wide open, remember nearly all lenses are much sharper stopped down usually at f8
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #14
Yes. Mate. The wider apperture when set to 1.8 will make it easier to control depth of field.
This will never be as easy with a kit lens.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #14
The 50mm would be great on a 70D. You can use the kit lens but maybe set at 35mm for your trophy shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #12
Apologies for hijacking, I've just bought a Canon 70D - assuming this lens would work on this as well?
The kit lens is ok, but a few have recommended the 50mm
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
Thanks Paul, I've heard good things about this one in the past
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #7
I've got the Canon f1.8 50mm and it is excellent for those trophy shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #8
This is a fantastic site for searching for photography equipment.
https://usedlens.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #6
you are right pumba. if you get your back to the water , get someone up close and low with a half decent phone
you can get great shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #8
nikon make that choice easy mate. the 35mm prime. its cheap whereas their 50 is expensive
canon not so easy as their cheap entry level 50mm prime needs a bit more room than all swims offer. but their 35 is expensive.
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8491006
|
|
|
|
I'm going to hijack this thread a little bit....
I've got the Nikon D5600 with just the kit lens (which I really like and very capable). Can anyone recommend a decent prime lens for trophy shots and general use? I wouldn't go insane on budget but would be good to know if there's a few options at different price levels and what the quality jump is like?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
On a budget you want the 50mm f1.8 for Canon or the 35mm f1.8 for Nikon.
If you're not on a budget or using something other than Canon/Nikon then we need more info to make a recommendation mate.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I know this sounds silly, but also make sure there is as much separation as possible between you and the background.
What camera do you have? That may make it easier for people to make suggestions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
ideally its also easier using a full frame camera.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
You got nikon or Canon?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
What camera body do you use?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Fixed 50
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to keep myself and the fish in focus and blur the background a bit what lens would do this and any tips would be help full👍
|
|
