0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm new to photography. I've had Nikon D3300 paired with Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens for half a year (shot ~2k photos) now and it's been my first ever contact with a DSLR. The reason why I want to upgrade or expand my lens library is because I don't find 18-70mm to be sharp enough. What I found as interesting lens choices are: Sigma/Tamron 17-50mm (low light, sharpness "upgrade"), Nikon 35mm prime (not really an upgrade but expansion of library and very sharp from what I've heard), 18-140mm (direct upgrade although not sure about image quality but extra range is always a plus).

My budget is around $200 and I have seen quite a lot of options for that money. I am making this post because I have seen dxo ratings of all above mentioned lenses and the only one standing out when it comes to image quality is the 35mm prime while all others are very close to my current lens (but $100+ more expensive).

Now, considering that the sensor is 24MP, I'm not sure any of the above lenses will satisfy me with image quality (except the 35mm). What is your suggestion to all this? Obviously better standard zooms like 17-55 and 16-80 are well above my budget (and on dxo site 17-55 somehow performed worse?).

Link to photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/195033271@N03/albums/72177720317314940/

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
9
  • \$\begingroup\$ What makes you believe the lens is the problem? Start here and only once you've ruled out everything there consider buying a new lens. If you're not sure why your photos may not be sharp, add some here (along with shutter speed / aperture / ISO metadata) and we may be able to help you rule down the issue(s). \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall ♦
    Commented May 26 at 14:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ I know the basics of exposure triangle so almost all photos were shot at iso100, 1/focal length (or greater) and aperture was never below f/4-5. I also know how autofocus works (I mostly shot with viewfinder). I'd like to add some photos but don't know a good method since in post it requires 2mb meanwhile raw files are nearly 20mb (even jpegs take up around 10mb) and compressing them won't really show them in full quality. \$\endgroup\$
    – Danilo Jonić
    Commented May 26 at 15:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ You can upload them to a third party site and and add a link. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall ♦
    Commented May 26 at 15:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ "aperture was never below f/4-5" Depending on what you mean by "below", this may be part of the problem, lenses are generally sharpest around 2 stops narrower than wide open. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall ♦
    Commented May 26 at 15:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, what do you mean by "a pixel level?" Are you viewing images at 100%. Very little looks good at that level. Also, most images need some sharpening. \$\endgroup\$
    – Not_Einstein
    Commented May 26 at 16:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

You are getting caught up in technical aspects, although I wouldn't necessarily say "pixel peeping." And I get it; I strive for images that hold up at 200-400% zoom (depending on monitor resolution/settings); even though I very seldom have any use/need for that kind of resolution... I also do not achieve the goal quite frequently.

Consider your use/needs... if you are just putting images online at <2MP resolution (2048px long edge) for flickr, facebook, etc; then 8MP recorded is far more than you really need or can use.

And that misses the bigger point... photography is an art. Unless the image is something very technical (like high magnification macro), then the technical aspects don't really matter all that much. The images that work the best do not require technical perfection or pixel level detail; some may even have significant technical flaws/issues.

The only people who care about that kind of technical stuff are other photographers stuck on technical details (which is easier and less subjective).

When you find something that you simply cannot accomplish to an acceptable level with the kit you have, that is when you (may) need to buy more/different kit... and at that point you should know what you need to get; because you have a specific problem it needs to solve.

If you've got the budget to buy stuff just to make you happy/happier, then that's fine too. But if it's not fixing a specific problem or fulfilling an actual need, then it's not really money spent wisely.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
0
2
\$\begingroup\$

This probably should be a comment but it is a bit long for that.

There are several similar questions regarding techniques to increase sharpness and questions regarding upgrading the gear.

In this specific case probably $200 is a bit low for a real "upgrade", especially for a similar zoom range lens.

One option could be having your first prime lens as you said in your comments. A 35mm 1.8 lens would be useful in some other situations, it is accessible, will expand your lens library, and help you determine the quality increase in sharpness and reduced aberrations.

A good exercise is to really know your lens, especially how it reacts to different aperture-zoom combinations.

You probably have chromatic aberration that can be reduced by closing the aperture and increasing ISO. Noise is easier to eliminate than chromatic aberrations for example.

Make a test scene or use one of the beautiful landscapes you have (envious face here) and take the same framing changing the aperture and testing some representative focal distances (Let's say 4 different).

Another thing you could learn from these tests is that you probably shoot more with the wide-angle range, so this probably helps you invest in a prime lens on that focal length. The thing is to know your gear and photo preferences.

Some other things to do is practice post-production, especially in correcting aberrations of your current lens.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 35mm is spot on I guess, I noticed most of my shots were in 30-70mm range so I'm not really losing much on versatility. On the other hand, i am still new to this rather expensive hobby and I still haven't figured out my lens completely. As for chromatic aberration, I use the Lightroom automated preset for my lens so I don't really know how to remove it other than this method. use one of the beautiful landscapes you have (envious face here) Haha I wish, this was taken on a holiday in a national park, so quite a limited window of opportunity (although I took nearly 1k photos). \$\endgroup\$
    – Danilo Jonić
    Commented May 26 at 19:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.