DirectX 67? Tongue-finity? My favorite quote: "Pulling a trigger is just as easy as pushing a button, only a lot more fun and healthy...You say babies, we say bootcamp" Nice.

There are three "commercials" in the playlist below, with the most interesting one loaded up first. A little too self-consciously viral, but too interesting not to share. [XFX 2118AD] Thanks Milo!

It doesn't matter what brand of camera you bought—if it's an entry-level DSLR, it was offered to you with an 18-55mm kit lens. I hope you took them up on that offer because no matter what you bought, that kit lens comes cheap, and is well worth it. Yes, of the five lenses covered here, that kit lens is numero uno.

KIT LENS
Like most bundle pricing, it's cheaper than buying the camera body and lens separately, and most experts agree that an 18-55mm is actually the perfect lens for most immediate photographic needs, with both a decent wide angle plus the ability to zoom in on far away objects. In fact, if you take a look at the four shots below—all taken by me with kit lenses on basic DSLRs—you can see a foreshadowing of the four other lenses in this briefing—telephoto, wide-angle, portrait and macro:

But if you read Gizmodo enough, you know that we've made the case that lenses, and not the cameras themselves, account most for great pictures. Photography is an optics game first and foremost, and there's a point at which that kit lens can't achieve shots that your heart and soul tell you are achievable. There's nothing wrong with your camera—seriously, there's nothing wrong with it. You just need to get some more lenses.

In order to run this story I called some experts at Canon, Nikon and Sigma, which makes discounted lenses for most DSLRs. I could have called experts at [insert your favorite non-Canon or Nikon camera brand here] but early on, the advice was consistent and clear: Anyone who is really taking an interest in their camera should invest in a telephoto zoom next, followed by a fast "normal" lens, which you might call a portrait lens.

LENS LABELING
In the interest of speed, I can't talk about lens anatomy, but there are some key attributes you need to know to read all lens retail listings: focal length and aperture.

In most cases, the lens categories here differ by the focal length, that is, how close a subject appears, indicated in millimeters. The human-eye equivalent is between 30mm and 50mm. A telephoto lens, which gets up close to things that are far away, can be as long as 500mm. A wide-angle lens, which makes close-up objects appear farther away, can be 10mm—still less if you want the bulbous fisheye look. A "zoom" lens simply means that it has a variable focal length—for instance, your kit lens, which can hit any length from 18mm to 55mm.

Because entry-level cameras have smaller (APS-C) sensors than professional APS) full-frame 35mm cameras, everybody makes two sets of lenses. Typically all lenses work on beginner cameras, but beginner lenses don't work on pro cameras. If you stick with beginner lenses (denoted Nikon DX, Canon EF-S, Sony DT, Pentax DA, Sigma DC and Tamron Di II), you won't have to stress, but if you want to buy a pro lens, or have some lying around, bear in mind that you need to multiply the focal length by 1.5 or so to get the equivalent focal length for your camera. A 50mm pro lens is really a 75mm lens on your beginner's model. Why am I telling you this? Because there are new and used pro-level lenses out there for really good prices.

In one case below, what sets the lens apart is its large aperture. The aperture is the hole that lets in the light, and it's measured by the f-stop. A wider aperture means more light comes in, and you have a better chance of getting nice shots indoors, in dimmer settings. A narrower aperture lets in less light. The trade-off is that a wide aperture can't focus on as many things that are at different distances—it is said to have a "shallow depth of field." Your main subject is clear, but the background is blurry—artistic in many cases, annoying in some. When you narrow the aperture, you can crisply resolve more elements, but only if there's enough light. The wide aperture of a "fast" lens can always be narrowed, but there's no way for a "slow" lens with a narrower aperture to bring in more light.

As if that wasn't tricky, check this out: The f-stop is a fraction, and the number you refer to is on the bottom, so if it's low (f/1.4), the aperture is wide, and if it's high (f/6.0), the aperture is narrow. Got it? Zoom lenses at beginner prices tend to have variable f-stops, apertures that get narrower, and in need of more light, as you zoom in.

TELEPHOTO ZOOM
Lenses in many ways are about reach, about bringing faraway subjects closer to your camera's sensor. "The low-end customer, who may take out their DSLR only occasionally, says, 'I want to shoot a picture of the moon, or animals at the zoo, or kids playing soccer,'" says Dave Metz, a lens specialist at Sigma. Even when that kit lens is cranked to the max, it's only giving you a 55mm focal length, which is why most DSLR makers have a very well-priced 55-200mm lens waiting at the ready. Prices range from $120 to $250, and it's usually the easiest purchase to make.

Credits: Lindsay Silverman - Nikon; me with Nikon; Robert O'Toole - Sigma; Stephen Lang - Sigma

Another telephoto zoom lens you'll see is the 18-200mm, which can cost anywhere from $350 to $600. That's a hefty premium to pay just so you don't have to schlep around two lenses, and generally speaking, the broader the focal length range, the more corners are being cut in performance. That lens is a pass.

If you are feeling particularly far out, both Metz and Nikon's camera marketing guru Steve Heiner suggest a 70-300mm lens. Sigma's model sells for under $200, Nikon's most recent model, with built-in image stabilizing, is just over $500, and there are 70-300mm lenses for everyone else ranging from $130 to $850, all with variable f-stops of either f/4.0-5.6 or f/4.5-5.6. Better yet, these lenses are spec'd for pro-grade full-frame cameras, so they're exceptionally zoomy on your beginner's camera, more like 105-450mm. Hey, don't think about it too much, just enjoy it.

NORMAL (AKA PORTRAIT)
As much traction as you'll get from a zoom lens, it doesn't really teach you much, except maybe how to compose without cropping. I personally learned a hell of a lot more about photography when I started playing with f/1.8 50mm lenses. This is called a "normal" lens because, says Heiner, "It was all you could get on a camera in the '50s and '60s." In fact, he jokes that even though younger people are snapping up this relatively cheap lens ($100 to $150), he and his ilk "couldn't wait to get away from it" when zoom lenses started hitting the market.

What does it do? As a "fast" lens, it can shoot really well in low light. Keep the aperture wide, get up in your subject's grill, and start clicking. You'll see parts of their face sharply resolved while other parts are softly blurred. Tighten the aperture a tad, and your subject's whole head is clear while the backdrop is soft and peaceful, even if it's a Manhattan street corner at rush hour. What doesn't it do? It doesn't zoom, and because it's usually rated for pro cameras, it's about the equivalent of 75mm on an entry-level DSLR—which is roughly the preferred focal length for portrait shooting—so you often have to step back to get a decent shot.

Credits: Me with Canon; Joe DiMaggio - Sigma; Joe DiMaggio - Sigma; Lindsay Silverman - Nikon

Alternatives to the cheap f/1.8 lens are an even faster one, f/1.4 ($300 to $500), or a 30mm or 35mm that gives entry-level cameras more of a "normal"—what your eye can see—perspective.

At this point, in addition to the original cost of your camera, you've spent less than $500, and you've added immeasurable functionality and artistic wiggle room. You can stop here, and you won't be judged. But, if you like, I can tell you about two more lenses that might rock your casbah.

ULTRA-WIDE ANGLE ZOOM
That kit lens brings you down to 18mm, which is enough for you to stand in a corner of a room and shoot pretty much anything going on in that room. But what if you're not in the corner? The same twist of fate that makes pro-level telephoto lenses even more zoomy on your entry-level DSLR makes wide angles trickier—or at least more expensive—to attain.

Why is this? Film is flat, so light can come in at any angle, and the film will mostly record it. But camera sensor pixels are concave, and don't do well with light coming in from the side. Think of the pixels as little water glasses, says Sigma's Dave Metz. "You can fill them up with water by pouring it in from above, but try shooting it in from the side with a garden hose, and it's going to go all over the place." A telephoto by definition is pulling in light from directly in front of it, whereas a wide angle by definition is bringing in light from the sides, too. Hence the trouble, and the added expense.

But if you have the means, it's the consensus of my experts that you should pick yourself up an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens (10-24mm, 10-22mm or 10-20mm). Just be very careful that it's one built specifically for entry-level DSLRs, with the arcane designations I mentioned in the "Lens Labeling" section. Discounted on Amazon, Nikon's is selling for $809 while Canon's is around $730. Tamron and Sigma make them for Canon and Nikon for just under $500.

Credits: Stephen Lang - Sigma; David FitzSimmons - Sigma; Carol Polich - Sigma; Joe DiMaggio - Sigma

And the aesthetic pay off? As Metz tells it, "I am sure you've seen a beautiful mountain scene; in the foreground there's beautiful little flowers. Because they're so close, they appear out of perspective. You effectively enlarge the flowers." It's also, as he points out, the best way to make sure that all the uncles and aunts are included in the family portrait you take at the Christmas dinner table.

MACRO
The final stop on our survey of lens-topia is the macro—or big hairy bug—lens. "When I try to show people about macro photography, they say 'What is that?'" says Lisette Ranga, a Canon camera marketing specialist, "but when they look through the viewfinder, and see how close you can get, they get it." While I don't understand why people like taking pictures of bugs and flowers so much, I am a victim of the chronic urge to do so. Though some are 50mm or thereabouts, many macros are telephoto lenses. The ideal, it seems, is to shoot stuff up close that you wouldn't even want to get near—he who snaps the most snakes and scorpions wins.

Credits: Canon 60mm Macro sample; Canon 60mm Macro sample; David FitzSimmons - Sigma; Lindsay Silverman - Nikon

So what do you look for? Typically, macro lenses have a fixed aperture of f/2.8 (sometimes f/2.5). Sigma has five lenses, ranging from 50mm ($300) to 180mm ($900), all fixed, plus a few zooms such as the one I personally want to try out, the 24-70mm ($570, compared to well over $1,000 for the equivalent Canon or Nikon). What's cool is that when you're not photographing scorpions (or stamps or coins or documents), you can use these for portraits and other "normal" shooting, but with such sharp resolve that some even recommend a bit of digital softening.

So you see, adding those final two lenses more than doubles your investment, and for a diminished payoff. That's what you would buy next, but for most of you, it's not what you should be buying.

IMAGE STABILIZATION, LENS MOUNTS AND YOUR DADDY'S LENS COLLECTION
Though some readers probably gave up on this story a long time ago, I have made every attempt to keep it clear and moving. In doing so, I skipped over lots of hot topics, including image stabilization and lens compatibility.

Canon and Nikon currently promote the hell out of image stabilizing lenses, in large part because their cameras do not have in-camera image stabilization like Sony, Pentax and Olympus. While image stabilization does tend to matter, its location doesn't seem to matter as much. The consensus on the internet is that it's a drag to have to buy IS in lenses over and over, and from what I've seen, there is a clear added cost when buying lenses a la carte. Nevertheless, there's a premium for buying Nikon and Canon because they are consistently the best reviewed and the biggest sellers, so there's no right or wrong. It's just something to look for when buying lenses, and to discuss with your favorite camera nerds.

The main reason Canon and Nikon don't have IS in their cameras is that the camera technologies pre-date the digital revolution, and it was harder to do with film. The flipside is this: Older film-based lenses from Canon and Nikon work on newer Canon and Nikon digital cameras. For Canon, it's the EF standard, which dates back to 1987. If the lens says EF on it, it will work. If it says EF-S, it was specifically made for entry-level DSLRs, and won't work on pricier pro models. If you put an EF lens on a camera that typically takes EF-S lenses, remember to multiply by 1.6 to figure out the real focal length.

For Nikon, it's a tad weirder: Any F-mount lens dating back to 1959 will fit on the thing, but only the lenses labeled AF-S will definitely work with D40/D60/D90/D3000/D5000 class of entry-level DSLRs. If the lens doesn't say "DX" on it, multiply the focal length by 1.5 to see what it really is. If your dad hands you a bag of Nikon lenses, accept them graciously, and try them all out, but be ready for weird results, or at the very least, a sudden lack of autofocus and auto metering.

LENS QUALITY
I want to leave you with one final bone of contention—the quality of the lenses. I recognize that I have made many suggestions that seem like go-out-and-buy-'em recommendations. I do think that shopping for new lenses on a tight budget is a good way to expand as a photographer, but this is not a "buyer's guide."

Many photography enthusiasts believe buying a cheap lens to attach to your camera would be like buying a used prophylactic to... well, I'll spare you the imagery. But the point is, there is surely a reason why third-party ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses cost half as much as big name versions, just as there is surely a reason why Canon's 50mm f/1.4 costs nearly four times as much as its 50mm f/1.8. There are real differences in lenses, and I'm happy to invite you to discuss them below.

The MIT Technology Review says that they both pulled their inspiration from the mind grapes of a British student who hypothesized that making objects look like a flat conducting sheet would successfully render an object invisible.

The basic idea is that objects hide under the mirror bump, and tiny silicon nanopillars on the surface of the mirrors steer light away from the object, making it—and the object it's covering—look flat. Technology Review likens this to hiding something under thick carpet.

That means, unfortunately, that this isn't an invisibility cloak we can run around in. These concepts follow suit with the original concept in thinking that a stationary, conductive sheet would work much better for rendering things invisible. So we all can't start skipping out on our dinner bills quite yet.

Still, you can't overlook the importance of taking little steps towards creating an invisible man. Invisibility is cool, even if just a concept in a lab somewhere. [Invisibility Cloak One and Invisibility Cloak Two via MIT Tech Review via KurzweilAI]

The technique, spearheaded by Bo Albinsson at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, encodes DNA in a way that, when mixed with light-receptive molecules called chromophores, self-engineer themselves into a natural photo-sensitive wire that can accurately transmit light—similar to those found in some algaes. The technique may also someday be used for artificial photosynthesis systems that may power next-gen solar cells. [New Scientist, Image: DNA visualized in a cDNA microarray from Wiki Commons]

Most interesting, perhaps, is the possibility of using the nanoparticles to construct metamaterials. In this guise they may find use as "invisibility cloaks"... which are currently nearly impossible to manufacture, and that's where the self-assembly part comes in.

The octahedral silver nanoparticles are produced in solution, and are relatively large scale, which lends them potentially better optical properties than competing nanoparticle inventions. [TechnologyReview]

DARPA hopes that the SRVS technology "will provide 90% accurate facial recognition of a moving individual from 1 km away (.62 miles), using a 6 cm lens." That represents a 3-fold improvement over current technology under more favorable conditions. However, the technique does not currently operate in real time, so the goal for researchers is to achieve a refresh rate of one frame per second. A finished product should weigh in at no more than 4.4 pounds with a length of around 14-inches and be available to Special Ops units by 2011. For once, I actually believe that might happen. [SRVS via New Scientist]

The system works by linking the individual pixels of the sensor with flexible wires, which allow the sensor itself to take any shape necessary. This will result in more efficient and compact lenses for endoscopes and, potentially, the aforementioned artificial eyes. Right now the biggest sensor they've made only has 256 pixels, but apparently the manufacturing process is similar to current sensors so the researchers are confident they can scale it up quickly. [Medgadgets]

As the sample moves through a metallic microfluidic channel, either by gravity or drawn by an electric field, it passes over a line of sub-micron diameter pinholes, blocking or transmitting light (sunlight works fine). The dynamic light level is then detected by a standard CCD device behind the holes. So it's lens-free, working more like a micro-sized scanner device, and yet it has comparable image quality to a top-rate glass-lensed traditional microscope.

And it's about the size of a quarter in its entirety: making it small enough to fit into a mobile-phone-sized device, with an LCD screen. It's cheap—around $10—and easy to make, and would be perfect for developing countries for easy detection of malaria in blood and such. [Physorg]

Intel's chippy takes a beam of light and karate chops it into eight channels, each of which has a modulator that encodes data onto light. These data-ified beams are then recombined, and boom. This all at happens at a rate of 25Gbps per modulator. This stuff is the building blocks of a computer future where copper is replaced by beams of light. But before that happens, Intel wants to cram 25 modulators onto a single chip, with each one running at 40Gbps, maybe with hybrid lasers built onto the chip to toss light at the modulator instead of an optical fiber.

Time to market? Three to five years. Fingers crossed. [MIT Tech Review]

The team actually made "completely harmless" black hole and white hole horizons in pairs, at a rate of 80 million a second, by piling up and stretching out ultrashort light pulses in the modified optical fiber. They even detected blue-shifting effects at the white hole horizons, which is predicted by theory.

Next on their agenda may be examining even more interesting quantum stuff like the radiation predicted by Stephen Hawking in his "black holes ain't so black" theory. And that's just cool. [Sciencemag via Wired]

If you're cursed with bifocals or fear they're in your future, you'll be glad to know optical scientists at the University of Arizona have been working on liquid-crystal eyeglass lenses that can switch focus on command.

The technology is still fairly clunky and the lenses don't auto-focus yet, but when the lenses have slimmed down and can focus automatically, bifocals will become a thing of the past—and you won't have to change lenses whenever you get new prescriptions either, since the doctor will be able to enter the new ones into your glasses. A firm called Pixel Optics is working on commercializing the idea now, after buying the patents from Johnson and Johnson Development Corp, which licensed them from the University and funded their research.

UA Optical Scientists Develop Switchable Focus Eyeglass Lenses [uaews.org]
Liquid-crystal eyeglasses make bifocals obsolete [SciFi Tech]