1st Lens Purchase...

Marc.

Marc.

Suspended / Banned
Messages
129
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I'm new to Photography and just purchased my first DSLR, a Nikon D3100.
This comes with the 18mm-55mm VR kit lens which I'm having a great time using and learning with.

What I would like to ask you experienced guys is, if you were in my shoes which lens would you make as your first purchase?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Marc
 
Welcome Marc to TP
Hard call as it depends really on what you are going to shoot.
As a walk about option something from 50-200 would probably sit nicely with your kit lens, if its birds you will need to go longer 300 minimum
 
What do you want to photograph will be the first question you need to answer. I went for the 55-200mm for my first lens and I love it but it's horses for courses really. :)
 
My first was the 55-300, for wildlife and motorsport, which I'm very pleased with. I've just got the 35mm 1.8 too which is fantastic.
 
Thanks guys,
I guess its the same with every noob, I want to photography everything!

Looks like a zoom lens will be the next logical step; I was considering a wide angle lens but I'd be forever in peoples faces when taking a photo :)

Thanks again for your advice, after a bit more research I know I'll be asking more questions here very soon!
 
55-200mm vr as the next lens. Then start a little pot for a Nikon 12-24mm or maybe a Sigma 10-20mm. By the time you get there, you'll know where any gaps are in terms of what you want to photograph. Enjoy.
 
As everybody says: depends on what you want to snap.
I got my first DSLR (D90 and still happily using it!) a bit over two and a half years ago and for the first year or so kept changing my mind about what I needed next - zoom? macro? nifty fifty? etc.

Then quite by chance I was asked to shoot snaps of my local children's footy league. First off, on a voluntary basis, simply as a record of the season (I'm on the committee and some members thought it would be a good idea). Then parents started to ask about buying prints of their kids and this has now lead to me being commissioned to shoot matches and tournaments.

Therefore I set my heart on a 70-200 F2.8.
Alas, it was but a dream and I now have - and am well happy with - the 70-300VR.

This chance opportunity has focussed my lens buying to a certain extent but I'm now getting yearnings for a decent portrait lens cos I have just done a baby shoot.

So it all depends, but I would agree that the 55-200 is a good flexible next lens, though.
 
Thanks guys,

That's been extremely helpful! I'm certainly leaning towards the 55-200mm for the first lens buy and 35mm to come after.

But with the long lens, is it worth putting the cash into 55-300 instead or would most people not bother? I know it'll obviously depend on how far away you want to shoot but I guess I'm thinking why not if you've got a bit more range?
 
The thing with the range is you'll always want a little bit more on some occasions no matter what.......:)
 
There's also a fascinating little cycle that most of us go through. It starts with longer, wider, longest widest etc until the extremes of our wallets are reached. Then at some point we get fed up carrying a huge bag and we start looking for smaller, lighter etc. I can illustate this in personal terms. Admittedly my interest is landscapes which does define range etc. At home I have a lovely Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR (shortly to hit Ebay), it's sharp, bright and a beautiful piece of kit. In the bag I actually use and carry to take pictures is an old Nikkor 135mm F3.5 AI lens. It is a fraction of the size of the zoom, takes 52mm filters and produces really crisp images. All part of the merry go round that drives wives and partners to distraction. Welcome aboard!
 
haha I can see how that could occur easily!
Thanks for the advice guys - really helpful!
 
Mountaineye said:
There's also a fascinating little cycle that most of us go through. It starts with longer, wider, longest widest etc until the extremes of our wallets are reached. Then at some point we get fed up carrying a huge bag and we start looking for smaller, lighter etc. I can illustate this in personal terms. Admittedly my interest is landscapes which does define range etc. At home I have a lovely Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR (shortly to hit Ebay), it's sharp, bright and a beautiful piece of kit. In the bag I actually use and carry to take pictures is an old Nikkor 135mm F3.5 AI lens. It is a fraction of the size of the zoom, takes 52mm filters and produces really crisp images. All part of the merry go round that drives wives and partners to distraction. Welcome aboard!
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth!
 
Marc. said:
But with the long lens, is it worth putting the cash into 55-300 instead or would most people not bother? I know it'll obviously depend on how far away you want to shoot but I guess I'm thinking why not if you've got a bit more range?
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of the 55-300, there's no substitute for reach in my book. While the 55-200 is very well reputed, the 300 is not that much more expensive and gives some cracking shots.
 
I went the 55-300 route on my d5100 as the first lens i bought. Has done well, got some good shots on safari earlier this year. Now im looking at a 150-500 for something longer!

Phil
 
Thanks guys, a friend let me try out his 55-200mm (and some others) which was fantastic as I'm mainly interested in portraits this looks like a great choice.thanks!
 
a prime would be better for portraits, the 35mm DX f/1.8G is a great option, dead cheap as well.
 
Exactly the route I've taken :lol: Had the 12-200mm range of lenses but realised I can happily go out with just one prime lens.

I just sold off my last zoom lens (excluding my wide angle) and I'm looking to add some cheap and cheerful manual focus primes like the 105mm 2.5 AI-S.

To the OP, do consider the 35/50/85mm F1.8 as your next lens. Being able to shoot at wide apertures is a lot of fun :)


Mountaineye said:
There's also a fascinating little cycle that most of us go through. It starts with longer, wider, longest widest etc until the extremes of our wallets are reached. Then at some point we get fed up carrying a huge bag and we start looking for smaller, lighter etc. I can illustate this in personal terms. Admittedly my interest is landscapes which does define range etc. At home I have a lovely Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR (shortly to hit Ebay), it's sharp, bright and a beautiful piece of kit. In the bag I actually use and carry to take pictures is an old Nikkor 135mm F3.5 AI lens. It is a fraction of the size of the zoom, takes 52mm filters and produces really crisp images. All part of the merry go round that drives wives and partners to distraction. Welcome aboard!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top