Lens Upgrade Ideas

Willwors · Mar 3, 2010

Hi there -

I'm looking to buy another lens for my D3000, which I bought just before Christmas. So far I've been playing around with the 18-55mm VR that came bundled with the camera but I'd like to buy another lens that might take my shots a bit further.

I've read up on the line-up of DX lenses and I'm struggling to decide between the 35mm f1.8 and the 55-200mm f4-5.6. I like shooting environmental portraiture, but obviously a bit of everything from time to time. I don't really shoot sports.

I'm trying to decide which of these two would be the best addition to the kit lens. What are people's personal opinions on these (especially for environmental portraiture), and are there any other lenses I should consider?

Many thanks

Will

PhotoXopher · Mar 3, 2010

I'd start by selling the kit lens and replacing it with something like the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM Macro, then if you need to - get a fast long zoom (70-200 for example).

Willwors · Mar 3, 2010

Yeah, that's something else I'd thought about. Note I need something with a motor in the lens as the D3000 VERY irritatingly has no built-in AF motor. Forgot to mention budget - probably no more than about £200, so maybe $300 State-side!

Derrel · Mar 3, 2010

Your budget is a factor in the decision. I'm not so sure about selling the kit lens--I look at the kit lens almost like a body cap, but one that can take photos! Selling a kit lens like an 18-55 does not provide much return in money for what the object can do, which is to be a light, portable, somewhat versatile "good-light" lens for either walkabout or indoor flash photography with the focus assist light enabled.

The 17-50 or 16-50 or 18-50mm f/2.8 lenses from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina are garnering a lot of followers, since they cost so much less than the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens. If you do buy an f/2.8 wide-to-50-ish 3rd party zoom, then selling the kit lens does make sense. But again, the kit lens brings so little money 2nd hand...it's almost a shame to get rid of it.

The 35mm 1.8 would be a good indoor and low-light lens,at a pretty low price, around $199 in the USA, perhaps more where you live. The 55-200 will give you more reach, but is pretty slow aperture-wise. The 35/1.8 DX is selling pretty well, and gives you a real taste of the high-speed prime lens category,and the short focal length will allow you to hold the lens steady at pretty slow speeds with a bit of practice, and is going to really leverage the whole D-SLR + ISO 1600 thing when the light is low.

vvkozmenko · Mar 3, 2010

When I was buying my Nikon D90, I had a similar dilemma in terms of lens selection. I have chosen 35/2 and 50/1.8 prime lenses. I have never regretted - the quality is superb, and zooming with my legs helps me to think a lot and compose a shot in my mind even before I tough the camera. Maybe one day, I will add a 20 mm and 85 mm lenses, but I can live happily with what I have right now.
Val

Geaux · Mar 3, 2010

My first lens purchase was the 35 f/1.8 and I haven't regretted it one bit. Actually, it's never left my camera since it was bought haha. For the price (200), it's a great lens for the money.

If you shoot indoors or at night, you can't beat it either lol. Well you can, but not for a reasonable amount of money

matfoster · Mar 3, 2010

vvkozmenko said:
When I was buying my Nikon D90, I had a similar dilemma in terms of lens selection. I have chosen 35/2 and 50/1.8 prime lenses. I have never regretted - the quality is superb, and zooming with my legs helps me to think a lot and compose a shot in my mind even before I tough the camera. Maybe one day, I will add a 20 mm and 85 mm lenses, but I can live happily with what I have right now.
Val

having a lens like an 85mm (or 105mm, 135mm etc) is useful for isolating the subject and removing distracting background, not only for bringing things closer.