Looking for first upgrade lens

garethf

garethf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
109
Name
gareth fox
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,
Im using at the moment a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55 kit lens and im looking to upgrade to my first new lens.
I mostly take landscape and portrait photos also some close ups when i can.
So idealy im looking for a all round lens,

I was looking at a nikon 35mm 1.4af for example or the 50mm
What could you guys recommend

Thanks
Gareth
 
I liked the Tamron 17 50 2.8 non VC lens as a upgrade. It's a different level to the kit lens in MHO. Reasonable price as well.
 
Get any 50mm prime you like! That's what i've done! I shoot on Canon and it's opened up loads of doors for me because it made me realise what I wanted to do, plus, 50mm's are absolutely awesome for portrait/model work :D
 
The Tamron 17-50 as mentioned above is a relatively cheap lens which is steps ahead of the kit lens in terms of picture quality and is good for low light being f2.8
Other than that I would say the Nikon 35mm f1.8 for about £160 new - great lens and gives an angle of view similar to natural eyesight so images just look "right"
 
farrance said:
Get any 50mm prime you like! That's what i've done! I shoot on Canon and it's opened up loads of doors for me because it made me realise what I wanted to do, plus, 50mm's are absolutely awesome for portrait/model work :D
Click to expand...
My first lens after the kit lens was a 50 mm too - but the cheaper 50mm primes won't AF on a D3000.

I've also got the Tamron 17-50 non VC and its hardly ever off the camera. :)
 
As Lynn says, all the 50mm suggestions are all well and good but the cheapest Nikon one that will AF on your camera is nearly £200 (mind that is still about a 6th of the price of the 35mm 1.4 you mention in your original post!).

Portraiture and landscapes suits a fast zoom really well. The Tamron 17-50 (non VC) 2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM would get my vote. Both around £200 used.

If they both seem a bit boring as they're not so far removed from your kit lens in terms of usage then I'd second the Nikon 35mm 1.8. Optically superb, a nice length for all sorts of photography and very good value.
 
Thanks guys,
Im not sure on when ill be looking to get one but, When i do first i need to decide of what shots i want to take most of.

I want a good lens for both Portraiture and landscape shots and close up
 
garethf said:
Thanks guys,
Im not sure on when ill be looking to get one but, When i do first i need to decide of what shots i want to take most of.

I want a good lens for both Portraiture and landscape shots and close up
Click to expand...

If by close up, you mean macro then you may wish to consider buying lenses for each purpose rather than trying to get one lens that does it all.
 
gad-westy said:
If by close up, you mean macro then you may wish to consider buying lenses for each purpose rather than trying to get one lens that does it all.
Click to expand...

Yes mate sorry i did mean macro, but the reason why i said that i wanted a good all round lens is because im not lucky enough to have a healthy buget to be able to buy lens to sort the different shot. I am looking at manybe getting some secondhand lens to start with.
 
farrance said:
Get any 50mm prime you like! That's what i've done! I shoot on Canon and it's opened up loads of doors for me because it made me realise what I wanted to do, plus, 50mm's are absolutely awesome for portrait/model work :D
Click to expand...

While the 50 is a "must have" lens I don't really think its a replacement for a kit lens, it does make a good head and shoulders style portrait lens it is too long for anything considered wide angle on a crop and isn't really long enough to be considered tele either.

It's a good additional lens, but a less than ideal replacement. My vote would also go to the Tamron 17-50.
 
I'd personally forget the above talk of a 50mm.

Main reason being, the Nikon 50mm that will autofocus on your D3000 will be way more expensive than the alternative 35mm 1.8 Jules mentions above.

The 35mm may be more expensive than the Canon 50mm (nifty fifty), but imho it's a better match to the crop sensor in your D3000 also.

Have a gander around and you'll see that they're generally snapped up very quickly. I bought mine new and to be honest, it's rarely off the camera!

Ask yourself one question. Are you upgrading because the quality of your kit lens doesn't produce high quality shots, because the low light performance isn't good enough, or if the focal range of your kit lens isn't short / long enough?
 
I have a Canon and my first lens purchase was a 50mm but that's because I wanted a macro lens & that was the cheapest. I'm pretty sure Nikon do a 40mm and 60mm macro lens which may appeal to you if you wanted a close-up & portrait lens.
 
To be honest for the 3 displines you mention, Landscape, Portrait and Macro, i dont think there is really a ones lens does it all solution.

For Landscapes, you ideally need to be looking for a lens with a 16-18mm starting point (24-28mm in old money terms) - sometimes even wider.

For Portrait, anywhere from 50-100mm (75-150mm in 35mm) is an ideal range to slightly flatten facial features to give a more flattering look and give decent background seperation.

The macro is a difficult one. If you are referring to true macro (i.e 1:1), then you only real choice is either a dedicated macro lens (for instance the Nikon 60mm or 105mm or Sigma 105mm) or close up dioptres. A macro lens also serves a good portrait lens as well, but is less capable as a landscape lens (unless you are only just interested in picking out details in the scene rather than the whole scene).

However, if you just want a resonable close up (not 1:1), then my personal choice would be either the Nikon 16-85 (24-120 in 35mm) or 18-200 (28-300 in 35mm) Both lenses are pretty decent (the 16-85 probably edges the other slightly in terms of quality), both have VR, and due to their good focal ranges, both can be left on the camera most of the time and serve as a very good all situation lens. As for close ups, well the 18-200 for instance, focusses as close as 50cm at the full 200mm, and that combined with a close up lens (say a +2 dioptre), will also give a decent "pseudo" macro abaility without breaking the bank.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Chears guys lots of use full tips here
Looks like ive got to have a good think about what i want to do more of regrads to what pictures im going to do more of.

Could i ask while im here, What pictures will my 18-55mm kit lens be good for rather than using it as an alround lens
 
garethf said:
Yes mate sorry i did mean macro, but the reason why i said that i wanted a good all round lens is because im not lucky enough to have a healthy buget to be able to buy lens to sort the different shot. I am looking at manybe getting some secondhand lens to start with.
Click to expand...

Based on this, maybe just go for a macro lens. Your 18-55 really isn't a bad landscape lens at all. A macro lens will allow you to take close ups to your heart's content but usually make very nice portrait lenses as well. Maybe look at something like the 90mm Tamron 2.8.
 
gad-westy said:
Based on this, maybe just go for a macro lens. Your 18-55 really isn't a bad landscape lens at all. A macro lens will allow you to take close ups to your heart's content but usually make very nice portrait lenses as well. Maybe look at something like the 90mm Tamron 2.8.
Click to expand...

Chears mate,
Ill look around for prices for one,
What kind of shots do people use the nikon 35 lens for then, ive been lead to think that it would make a good landscape and portrait lens
 
garethf said:
Chears mate,
Ill look around for prices for one,
What kind of shots do people use the nikon 35 lens for then, ive been lead to think that it would make a good landscape and portrait lens
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a jack of all trades though doesn't neccessarily excel in one particular area. It's nice for portraits as you can get a nice shallow depth of field and is short enough that you can get full length portraits in confined spaces. Longer lenses sometimes flatter the subject a little more (due to narrower perspective) but the 35mm does very well.

It works well for certain landscapes but I would say isn't wide enough to be your only landscape lens. I have used mine for some landscapes but tend to gravitate towards wider lenses.

It does make a nice walk about lens for just snapping stuff you see. It's very small and light too if that's an advantage.

Not much good for macro stuff though.

A good thing to do is to leave your kit lens stuck at 35mm for a few days. Try shooting a variety of subjects and see how that focal length works for you.

These are some examples from my FlickR using the 35mm.


_GAD8818 by G.A.D, on Flickr


St Mary's by G.A.D, on Flickr


Millenium Bridge Night by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
gad-westy said:
It's a bit of a jack of all trades though doesn't neccessarily excel in one particular area. It's nice for portraits as you can get a nice shallow depth of field and is short enough that you can get full length portraits in confined spaces. Longer lenses sometimes flatter the subject a little more (due to narrower perspective) but the 35mm does very well.

It works well for certain landscapes but I would say isn't wide enough to be your only landscape lens. I have used mine for some landscapes but tend to gravitate towards wider lenses.

It does make a nice walk about lens for just snapping stuff you see. It's very small and light too if that's an advantage.

Not much good for macro stuff though.

A good thing to do is to leave your kit lens stuck at 35mm for a few days. Try shooting a variety of subjects and see how that focal length works for you.

These are some examples from my FlickR using the 35mm.


_GAD8818 by G.A.D, on Flickr


St Mary's by G.A.D, on Flickr


Millenium Bridge Night by G.A.D, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Thanks mate,
Keeping my kit lens set to 35mm sounds like a good idea, so this weekend ill give it a try while im walking the dog.

To be horest out of landscape, portrait and marco i get most of my enjoyment off the landscape and portraits. So for now im going to stay on look out for a good lens for the two shots
 
garethf said:
Thanks mate,
Keeping my kit lens set to 35mm sounds like a good idea, so this weekend ill give it a try while im walking the dog.

To be horest out of landscape, portrait and marco i get most of my enjoyment off the landscape and portraits. So for now im going to stay on look out for a good lens for the two shots
Click to expand...

Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM are the two I would look at. Should do both jobs very nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top