Okay, so maybe I was a bit ambitious with the idea of a whole new blog and Flickr group for my Family Photographer idea, but there’s no reason I can’t start the posts here and migrate them to a new blog as time, energy and your interest permit.
Amy from the Muddy Boots blog asked me about lenses, and I thought that was as good a place as any to start.
My D40 came with an 18-55 mm “kit” lens, which is pretty standard on an entry-level dSLR. Last summer, after we’d had the camera for about a year, we invested in a a 55-200 mm telephoto lens, which is great for bringing far-away stuff closer, but also takes excellent portraits. This picture of Simon, for example, was taken with my telephoto:
It separates him from the background by giving that lovely bit of blur to the leaves behind him. The telephoto lens is bulky, though, and you need to be able to back up enough to get your subject framed properly. (Funny, looking at that picture of Simon now, I wish I’d gotten in a little closer and filled the frame more!)
Two months ago, we got our third lens, a 50 mm f1.8 fixed (or ‘prime’) lens. The f1.8 means that 1.8 is the largest aperture, and 1.8 is fairly large. What that means is that it lets in a lot of light, which means that you can shoot in a wider range of natural lighting conditions without having to use your flash. By contrast, the largest aperture on my 18-55mm lens is f3.5, and on the telephoto is f4.
When you spend a lot of time crawling around the house trying to snap a photo of the toddler who never sits still, you appreciate the convenience of a wider aperture! I don’t think I’ve taken a single picture using my flash since I got the 50mm lens in April, which is great because I hate the cold, flat pictures that the in-camera flash creates. And the larger aperture also means that I can get a much shallower depth of field (area that is in focus) so I can play with that creatively.
Yesterday, I wanted to take a picture of Lucas’s feet just after his bath, but I didn’t want to use the flash because I knew that the natural light from the window would make for some beautiful shadows that would help define the textures of his toes. Originally, I was shooting with the aperture at around f4 and he was so wriggly that every shot was coming out blurry. When I opened the aperture up to the maximum of f1.8 I got two things I wanted: a shorter shutter speed, which “froze” his motion and gave me a fairly crisp shot of his toes, and a lovely blur to the rest of his body, which also helped focus attention on his feet. I love love love how it turned out:
For something like a shooting a wedding, where the lighting is likely to be low and you don’t want to use a flash, I’d highly recommend a lens like the 50mm f1.8. The only drawback is that it won’t autofocus with the D40, which is a bit of a drag. (I’m beginning to think my eyesight isn’t as keen as it used to be, because I’m having a heck of a time getting my focus tack-sharp lately!) If you have a few more $$ to invest, you can get a 50mm f1.4 — that’s an even larger aperture! woot! — that will autofocus with the D40, but at almost twice the price.
I leave the 50mm lens on my camera all the time, and only change to the 18-55mm if I know I’ll want the autofocus capability, or will be going somewhere that I’ll want to take some wide-angle shots. I use the telephoto lens to bring stuff closer, like when we went to Parc Omega, and for nice close-ups and portraits. The 50mm is no slouch at portraits, though:
I think these three lenses will cover just about all of my needs for right now. The next item on my wish-list is a decent flash, but if I had to choose a next lens to get and price were no object, I’d probably get the 18-200 mm lens, which would combine my kit lens and telephoto into a single lens.
What do you think? For those of you with dSLRs, what lenses do you have, do you love, and do you covet?

















































