DSLR Lenses?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

king tut

New member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
152
Location
Burlington(just outside of the city)
I bought a new Nikon Dslr camera and got a 18-55 mm lens and a 55-200 mm lens. Question is, what would you camera gurus suggest I get if I were to get one more lens? I would generally be taking pictures of people, landscapes, and maybe shots of small interesting things like flowers, drops of water, etc...
 
A fast (f/2.8) prime macro around 70 to 100mm. Great for candid (10-20' away) portraits, action shots of pets, and close-up macro work.

Otherwise, either a 35mm or 50mm superfast (f/1.4) prime.

I can't speak to specific Nikkor lenses as I'm a Canon guy.
 
I tend to like wide angle lenses for landscapes and have a Canon 10-22mm lens (16-35mm 35mm equiv, crop factor of 1.6).

From your stated lenses, I'm guessing that you have a DX camera with a similar crop factor.

It looks like Nikon has a similar 10-24mm lens and there may be similar (cheaper...) products from other manufacturers. Here is a review (he seems to like it) which also lists some similar lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm

Doug
 
Last edited:
Get a cheap 50mm Macro lens. Small, lightweight, extremely sharp for normal photography and also allows for closeups of the flowers you mentioned.
 
I think you have people covered with your two lenses. You can get good landscapes with the 18-55 but like Doug, I also prefer a wider lens. I have a Sigma 10-20 to deal with landscapes, seascapes and skyscapes. For closeups of little things, I use a 100mm Macro which will also double as a nice portrait lens.

JohnL
 
This should probably be moved to the Photography forum. IMHO a 100mm on a camera with a crop factor will become pretty much a telephoto lens.
 
I would keep the 18-55 lens on the camera and carry the telephoto in my pack or maybe even leave it home, especially if I was in the mountains. Too much gear can make it a hassle to take pictures. Its all about the picture
 
Hi, Sounds like you've got the basic ranges covered. E.g., 18-200mm DX. I might suggest that you hang out for a while with the 2 lenses you've got and see what kind of photos you like taking and what kind of photos you actually end up taking and whether you feel like you're missing out on certain kinds of photos.

Once you've been shooting for a bit, you'll know whether you're wishing you could zoom in just a tad more on that neighboring summit, wanting a faster lens to keep the grey jay in the tree in focus, or you keep stepping back because you don't have enough room to fit everything into the frame. Or you'll decide you're all set on what you have or maybe you'll want to upgrade the optics. It also depends on how much you're willing to carry.

I shoot Nikon, and you can't go too wrong. I could tell you what lenses I have, and which ones I carry, but that's what works for me and the photography I do. Play with it and the answer will come to you. And have fun in the process! :)
 
Sardog gave good advice.

You might want to shoot around a bit and see which way you want to go next. There are at least four possible directions:

1. Wider. Like 10mm or shorter, for actual wide-angle shots (your 18mm x 1.5 = 27, not really wide angle). Panoramas, waterfalls from up close, interiors. Affordable, easy to use.

2. Macro. Either a dedicated macro lens, or an add-on close-up lens, or macro tubes. Make trade-offs between price, weight/bulk, and convenience, but any of the options will open up a big new world of subjects.

3. Longer. 200mm with a 1.5 crop factor isn't bad, but if you really like shooting birds and other wildlife, you'll crave something even longer, and faster, and with image stabilization. But you'll want a bigger bank account, and you'll need a tripod if you go past, oh, 400mm.

4. Quality. Fixed lenses are less convenient, but higher quality, and relatively affordable. You might also consider trading that wide ranging 55-200 zoom for something like 50-100 plus 100-300 (not sure what the options are for Nikons); usually you get much less distortion and better speed if you're not trying to cover such an extreme length range. But you need to study your potential purchases carefully, you can't judge the quality of a lens solely by its length range or even by its price - though top quality usually does come at a high price.

Myself I carry a 28-100, a 100-400 (sometimes- it's heavy!), and macro tubes. I might add a wide-angle someday but I don't miss it much.

PS If you like a challenge, start reading about flash photography now - there's lots to learn. See www.strobist.com
 
Last edited:
Consider a nifty fifty, ie. 50mm f1.8 Best lens bargain going, cost around $125. Yes it is a prime and you have zoom with your feet but it is a fast lens. Allows indoor shots without flash, very, very sharp with decent bokeh, razor sharp DOF at f1.8. Both Canon and Nikon have their own versions of this prime. Reviewed here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm Whenever anyone asks me what lens to get after the kit lens, I point them towards a nifty fifty.
 
Consider a nifty fifty, ie. 50mm f1.8 Best lens bargain going, cost around $125. Yes it is a prime and you have zoom with your feet but it is a fast lens. Allows indoor shots without flash, very, very sharp with decent bokeh, razor sharp DOF at f1.8. Both Canon and Nikon have their own versions of this prime. Reviewed here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm Whenever anyone asks me what lens to get after the kit lens, I point them towards a nifty fifty.

+1. My wife has the Nikon version and loves it. (FWIW, she's got some very refined tastes in lenses .........)

You may have to hunt a little for the Nikon version. It's been supplanted by newer, more expensive ones and is beginning to disappear from the retailers' shelves.
 
Just to be clear, a 50mm fixed is a great lens for indoor use, but it's less useful for hiking.
-"zooming with your feet" may not be an option
-high speed (and corresponding bokeh) not needed most of the time
-I don't know the Nikon kit lens, but I'd be surprised if the quality difference (distortion, chromatic) was very noticeable at 50mm.

I'd look at a macro lens / tube first. Lets you get shots you otherwise couldn't get at all, and you'll definitely use it while hiking.
 
-I don't know the Nikon kit lens, but I'd be surprised if the quality difference (distortion, chromatic) was very noticeable at 50mm.

Yes, you would be. ;) As Ken Rockwell puts it (and my wife can attest):

"It's sharper than any $1,800 zoom.

On a D3 it is sharp and contrasty in the center at every aperture.

In the corners on a D3, spherical aberration makes it a bit less contrasty (but still well defined) at f/1.8, and it's just about perfect by f/4.

The only difference between this and the 50mm f/1.4 D and 50mm f/1.2 AI-s is that the faster lenses become sharper at f/2, but all are the same by f/4. The faster lenses also cost two to four times as much and have more distortion."
 
Top