Hey all! New here. :)

[RaspberryElephant]

Hi everyone! I just got my first DSLR in November (for my B-Day!), and I have been playing with it a bit.
It is the Nikon D90 and I have the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens with it.
I'm a total noob, so I have a couple stupid questions.
What does VR stand for?
Are zoom lenses or non-zoom lenses better for photography? I want to do portraits and close-ups mostly.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

~Dolly

[Indigo November]

Hi Dolly! Helluva birthday present!
Welcome to DPS!!

I've got the same camera, got mine in April 2010.
I recommend that you pick up the 35mm f/1.8, it is a great, fast lens for a good price. Serves me well.

VR means Vibration Reduction. The lens has a motor in it to counter camera shake at slow shutter speeds.
Not really a necessity...

Umm, not sure how to answer the second question... All lenses are good for photography, that is what they are made for.
For portraits you might what a prime lens or a faster zoom.
I find that the only thing that the 18-105 kit lens is good for is landscapes. It isn't very good at producing skin tones.
For macro (close-ups) you should get a macro lens, but they run at least $500. Not sure what your budget is...

[dlambert]

Zoom lenses let you use one lens to cover multiple focal lengths, but in order to do that, they're more complicated optically and mechanically. As a result, primes are sharper than zooms, all things being equal. If you take a really high-end zoom, for instance, it might be able to give a cheap prime lens a run for its money, but if you compare two lenses with similar-quality build and optics, the prime will be sharper than the zoom, and probably more optically true as well (less distortion).

The "compromises" in a zoom lens also tend to be more accentuated with greater zoom range (ie, it's easier to make a high-quality 18-55 lens than an 18-200 lens), so you don't find lenses that have huge zoom ranges *and* good quality *and* a low price.

These are, of course, very general statements, so your best bet is to compare two specific lenses.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by RaspberryElephant

Hi everyone! I just got my first DSLR in November (for my B-Day!), and I have been playing with it a bit.
It is the Nikon D90 and I have the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens with it.
I'm a total noob, so I have a couple stupid questions.
What does VR stand for?
Are zoom lenses or non-zoom lenses better for photography? I want to do portraits and close-ups mostly.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

~Dolly

VR stands for Vibration Reduction for Nikon lenses.

[RaspberryElephant]

Thanks Indigo November, dlambert and Jim Bryant!

@Indigo November: Thanks for the advice, I was thinking about getting the 50mm f/1.8 lens, what are the advantages of one over the other?
Yeah, I'm not in the budget for a $500+ lens right now, lol I have been using my kit lens for macro right now, is that ok?

@dlambert: umm, that didn't make much sense to me, I'm not good with the technical side of things.
What does this mean for my 18-105 lens? It covers a wide range, does that mean it isn't good?

@Jim Bryant: Thanks!

[dlambert]

Dolly, my understanding is that the 18-105 is pretty good as far as kit lenses go, but if you pick up a 35mm or 50mm prime, you should see an improvement in sharpness with those lenses. That doesn't make your lens bad, per-se -- after all, you can't beat the convenience of a good zoom as a general-purpose lens.

[ravncat]

I find that the only thing that the 18-105 kit lens is good for is landscapes. It isn't very good at producing skin tones.

The 18-105 has the about same coolish (slightly blue) color as the other nikon lenses, it has no problem with skin tones, in color that's just proper exposure and white balance.
It's fine for portraiture

The sharpness game gets expensive fast. Primes tend to be sharp, but the real reason is wide aperture, they let more light in, so can shoot in darker places. Another benefit of wide aperture is depth of field isolation, can more easily make pictures with a sharp subject and blurred background

While a prime is a good purchase and can be good for learning, photography geta expensive, if you let it. I'd advise learning what you have, and look into more lenses when you find a type of image hard or impossible. Lenses tend to be specialized, your basic zoom is a little bit more general

[Indigo November]

Originally Posted by RaspberryElephant

Thanks Indigo November, dlambert and Jim Bryant!

@Indigo November: Thanks for the advice, I was thinking about getting the 50mm f/1.8 lens, what are the advantages of one over the other?
Yeah, I'm not in the budget for a $500+ lens right now, lol I have been using my kit lens for macro right now, is that ok?

@dlambert: umm, that didn't make much sense to me, I'm not good with the technical side of things.
What does this mean for my 18-105 lens? It covers a wide range, does that mean it isn't good?

@Jim Bryant: Thanks!

On a crop body (like the D90) I think that the 35mm is better. I have both and I like the length of the 35mm better.
It is really up to you though.

Originally Posted by ravncat

The 18-105 has the about same coolish (slightly blue) color as the other nikon lenses, it has no problem with skin tones, in color that's just proper exposure and white balance.
It's fine for portraiture

At the risk of making our new friend feel like she needs to buy a different lens, I am going to have to disagree with you.
In my experience, the 18-105 gives a gray "dead fish" color to skin, in natural lighting. Under studio lights it is just fine.
But assuming that Dolly doesn't own anything like that, I think that she will find it difficult to get healthy faces SOOC.
Of course, with some knowledge of PP this can be corrected, but I still prefer lenses that get it right, like the 35mm.

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by Indigo November

In my experience, the 18-105 gives a gray "dead fish" color to skin, in natural lighting. Under studio lights it is just fine. Of course, with some knowledge of PP this can be corrected...

I'm going to have to disagree with you as well - I guess we can agree to disagree
That really sounds like a white balance issue to me. In case the OP is shooting in JPG - color correction in PP becomes more difficult and white balance has to be dealt with entirely before the photograph is taken.

it's worth noting that when working in color, one must really rely on setting (custom) white balance to get great skin tones every time. (You can get lucky alot with auto white balance, the presets are better if you are in the preset kind of lighting) Regardless of the lens. I don't think lenses "get it right" I think the photographer does.


Full disclosure:
I don't have an 18-105 - I've only used a friends and for landscaping (which is where my comment of the standard color cast from the coating comes from. - he however uses it for portraiture. (And in my opinion (for whatever that is worth) produces nice results without studio lighting, but he does shoot in raw and uses a white balance target)

I also realize, I don't know much about you (Indigo) or your shooting habits or skill level, I took a trip to your flickr, nice work - some with great skin tones

[Indigo November]

Originally Posted by ravncat

I'm going to have to disagree with you as well - I guess we can agree to disagree
That really sounds like a white balance issue to me. In case the OP is shooting in JPG - color correction in PP becomes more difficult and white balance has to be dealt with entirely before the photograph is taken.

it's worth noting that when working in color, one must really rely on setting (custom) white balance to get great skin tones every time. (You can get lucky alot with auto white balance, the presets are better if you are in the preset kind of lighting) Regardless of the lens. I don't think lenses "get it right" I think the photographer does.


Full disclosure:
I don't have an 18-105 - I've only used a friends and for landscaping (which is where my comment of the standard color cast from the coating comes from. - he however uses it for portraiture. (And in my opinion (for whatever that is worth) produces nice results without studio lighting, but he does shoot in raw and uses a white balance target)

I also realize, I don't know much about you (Indigo) or your shooting habits or skill level, I took a trip to your flickr, nice work - some with great skin tones

Haha, well I respect that.
I shoot RAW, and it isn't a big deal to fix in post, but I feel like I get better results with the 35mm.
To each his own.

Very true, it is the photographer, not the lens (or the camera).
But if a lens is full of dust, fungus and scratches, you aren't going to get an image that doesn't show this.

Thanks for looking. Most of those were taken with my 35mm lens (only the landscapes were with the kit lens).
hehe...