Lens choice

GalJulie

GalJulie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Name
Julie
Edit My Images
Yes
I've a D3100 with 18-55 kit lens, the 55-200 (rarely used) and 50mm 1.4 (not used often either, to be honest). I've found the 18-55 is the main lens I use. However, kit lenses get a bad press so I'm told - "Its not the camera you need to worry about, you need good glass - and kit lenses are great glass."

I had thought of buying a wide angle like sigma's 10-20mm variable aperture so I could take landscapes. But I'd also like to be able to take some macro shots so nikon's cash back offer for the 40mm was enticing me. I had bought close up filters but they a rubbish. The 35mm was also interesting as I've read its a better focal length for indoors.

Sometimes I've seen the 50mm and 35mm referred to as a macro. Is that right? I thought macros were 1:1 ratios - but both these lenses have numbers on the barrel of 1:1.8 or 1:1.4. You can tell from this query that I'm new to photography!

Also, in the future I'd consider (if I improved my photography :)) of upgrading to an FX (perhaps a year or two down the line) so therefore I don't really want to buy DX lenses but at the same time, FX lenses cost a fortune.

Has anyone any advice that will help me buy wisely - or talk me out of buying at all ;). For some reason I feel the need to buy a lens because of Nikon's cash back offer (oh, and having a few quid on a gift card for Amazon helps!).

Thanks
 
I'm just replacing my d3100 with a d7000. Great camera.

I've got the sigma 10-20mm and love it, check out my London shots on Flickr, most of them were taken with it. After loving this lens, I saw a Sigma 17-70mm come up cheap and went for it. It is a great lens, it is also a macro lens, so you can get nice and close, but it is also a faster lens, so it is more flexible.

I never liked my kit lens, it felt wrong and looked wrong. I hardly used it, always ended up using my 55-300mm instead. Since I got the Sigma 17-70, it lives on my camera.
 
Thanks for this, Dale. If I didn't go FX in the future, then the D7000 was the one I was looking at esp as the price has dropped a bit. The sigma 10-20 is a good price at the min too.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a macro lens? I checked the link to the 17-70 and I couldn't see a reference to macro in the details. Unless it has macro (micro) in the then I wouldn't know whether it was capable of macro or not. That's how new to photography I am!
 
I think the main thing you need to look at is what type of photography you mainly do i.e. landscapes, sport, people etc. This would mainly determine the type of lens(es) you may need to focus on (ha, ha, focus on, I like that).

I've not long had a Nikon D200 and picked up an 18-70mm lens to go with it and am very impressed with the results. Also, the 18-105mm is a good piece of kit too, from what I've read on here, so may be worth considering. Also, they are very reasonable prices 2nd hand so wouldn't break the bank.
 
musicalbloke said:
I think the main thing you need to look at is what type of photography you mainly do i.e. landscapes, sport, people etc. This would mainly determine the type of lens(es) you may need to focus on (ha, ha, focus on, I like that).
Click to expand...

+1 on this. It really depends on what you usually shoot to determine what lens to choose.

Another question - why are you changing your lenses? Are they restricting you for some reason? For a beginner, your lenses are adequate.

I think kit lenses get a bad rep, but personally speaking the 18-55mm kit is a more than adequate lens for me. It produces sharp, crisp shots. One thing that does annoy me is the variable aperture which is one reason which I may think of changing the kit lens but happy with it at the moment.

I am also thinking about getting a super-wide angle for better landscape shots.

Macro lenses are very expensive and yes, it is a 1:1 magnification. Macro lenses allow you to focus when you are within a few inches of a subject. Try using your kit lens and try focusing on an object really close up - it will not allow you. I have got a Raynox attachment and it works quite well. I've tried a number of Macro shots and they work well at the telephoto end of my 55-300mm - a much cheaper alternative than forking out hundreds of pounds on a dedicated macro lens. If you are starting out I would recommend this then if you seriously would like a dedicated lens then you can go for one.

My advice would be to keep shooting with your basic lenses and if you feel after months they are restricting you, you should invest in better glass. Your 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, you should try using this more often.

You can check my website for examples of photos I took with my basic kit lens, 35 mm lens and my 55-300mm telephoto.
 
Last edited:
my advice is to not look at quick and easy cheap lenses like the 35 DX and 40 micro DX if you plan to go full frame.

I had a D3100 and bought a sub £400 lens every month, all DX. when I decided to go full frame, my bag full of DX lenses instantly became completely useless. it was a painful upgrade process.

so save up a bit and consider getting a good full frame lens to use for next 10 years. so perhaps a 10-20mm for wide angle, then a 24-?? for walk about.
 
wuyanxu said:
my advice is to not look at quick and easy cheap lenses like the 35 DX and 40 micro DX if you plan to go full frame.

I had a D3100 and bought a sub £400 lens every month, all DX. when I decided to go full frame, my bag full of DX lenses instantly became completely useless. it was a painful upgrade process.

so save up a bit and consider getting a good full frame lens to use for next 10 years. so perhaps a 10-20mm for wide angle, then a 24-?? for walk about.
Click to expand...

I always think the other way. Buy what suits your needs now. I also nearly always buy used and that way, if I do need to sell an item further down the line, I'll make a minimal loss, in fact I change gear so frequently I'd be destitute by now if I didn't cover my back a little.

So my advice is, you have a DX camera, buy lenses to suit DX, (if you need buy lenses at all that is). FWIW the 10-20 mentioned above is a DX lens anyway.
 
Last edited:
indeed, buying second hand is a great way to make sure you don't loose out too much when upgrading. but still painful process to sell, so IMO it's better to saveup a bit and get a much better lens. (assuming generally FX lenses are better)

the 10-20mm is mentioned because 24mm is way too narrow for DX. the UWA FX lenses doesn't really work as UWA on DX. so a DX lens is needed here, unfortunately. but buy second hand will make sure you have minimal loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top