Looking for some lenses

noob873 · Oct 16, 2007

Not sure if this is the right place, oh well.

Eventually I want to get myself a fisheye and a macro, I have no idea which ones are good and which I should get. Not sure how much I want to spend yet either, if anyone has any suggestions please help.

Thanks.

Im using a nikon d50

noob873 · Oct 19, 2007

lordson · Oct 20, 2007

what kind of pictures will you be wanting to take?

landscapes? close ups? portraits? far awaw things? would be helping to know a spend limit too

i've asked the same question and somebody told me:

"Bang for buck though the 17-70 is probably the best value for money for photographer starting out. It's not the fastest lens (i.e. aperture won't open very wide allowing for a faster shutter speed) but it is one of the cleanest glass out there. I've tried out the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ($800-$1200) lens and the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro ($450-$550) lens and at f/4 both are very close in optical quality with the 17-70 allowing you a larger aperture (f/2.

at the wide end (17mm). If you intend on shooting at night or in low light situations then look at using the extra money to purchase a prime lens, something like a 50mm f/1.8 which are normally pretty cheap. "

or you can look through these reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

IvanD · Oct 20, 2007

If you are going for all-round photography, I would suggest the Nikkor 18-200mm VR.

It's a BIT more expensive than usual lenses, but I can tell you it's well worth it...

lordson · Oct 20, 2007

you will find a review of that lens on the link i gave you

theres a large amount of barrel distortions at 18mm, which will occur with alot, if not all cheaper lenses. the best range is roughlty 25-35mm and it starts getting pincushion distortion from there onwards

and the background blur of objects not in focus isn't good. its very distrating, youll have to see the pictures to know what i mean.

thats what the reviewer says. But every user review i've read, about a dozen, they all gave the 18-200mm a 10 out of 10, like IvanD here.

so its still a good lens apparantly, but a tad expensive. Plus side is that you wont have to change you lens often if you want to shoot close/landscape and far away things.

minimum distance of the 18-200 is 45cm, I'm not getting mine till Tuesday, I'll tell you how it is

noob873 · Oct 21, 2007

I already have one of those 18-200 ones that you suggested, but I was looking for a macro and a fish eye. Any suggestions on the fish eye?

JIP · Oct 21, 2007

IvanD said:
If you are going for all-round photography, I would suggest the Nikkor 18-200mm VR.

It's a BIT more expensive than usual lenses, but I can tell you it's well worth it...

Why sugest such a total waste of money when the OP asked for a specific type of lens. The type pf lenses you asked about really depend on your budget but I have a few suggestions.

For a macro lens this is the bsic selection in a good quality Nikon. As I said it all depends on your budget but here are a few on the upper end...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_60mm_f_2_8D_Macro_Autofocus.html

Next a little higher but the advantage here is that you do not have to be so extremely close to your subject.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/424744-USA/Nikon_2160_105mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Again more expensive but better because it is a longer focal-length so you can be further away.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66989-GREY/Nikon_1989_Telephoto_AF_Micro_Nikkor.html

Now as far as a fisheye you have a couple of choices depending on your budget. This is a wide to almost fisheye but an f/4 so it is a little slow.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/277227-USA/Nikon_2144_12_24mm_f_4G_ED_IF_DX.html

Now for the good stuff. the 10.5 it is a little cheaper but it is a true fisheye.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300487-USA/Nikon_2148_10_5mm_f_2_8G_ED_DX.html

You can also look into Sigma, Tamron or the others but I hope this gave you a start.