On the market for a new lens. Need some help.

[Ygoza]

I currently have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d on my Nikon D90. I really want the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I also want the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, a 24mm lens Nikon or third party, and a fish eye(probably the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8). As I am a college student it's almost needless to say I won't be getting all this gear for quite sometime. I need your help. Im fairly new to photography and want to know your opinions as better established photographers and as wiser people. Right now my plan is to get the 50mm and sell my current 50mm to put towards a 24mm (I'm looking at a manual lens). But i started thinking why? Sure the bokeh would be nicer for portraits but I'm not sure if thats really something to worry that much about at this point since i do at least have a 50mm. So maybe the 30mm? but I'm not sure if that focal length is that different from the 50mm. I know that you multiply it by 1.5 (for nikon) to get your true focal length but like i said i don't have the experience. I want the 30 for walk around, the 24 for walk around/scenes, and the 50 for walk around/portraits. I want to stick with primes since the quality is better to the telephoto. What do you guys think? I guess I just need some opinions on rank of when to get what since eventually I will get all of it. Its just a matter of when I get what. Thanks!

 

[Jim Walczak]

While I don't wish to sound rude, what I see mostly in your post is "I want...I want...I want", with little reason to justify your choices. This is strictly my own opinion, but personally I buy my lenses based on "need" (barring the rare occasion where I find something for dirt cheap, LOL). For example, because I have a strong interest in shooting critters and wildlife, I typically NEED to have a good, long zoom...while it's inexpensive, my Tamron 70-300mm is one of my trusty "go to" lenses. When I switched from Canon to Nikon, it was the FIRST LENS I BOUGHT. Because I also have a strong interest in landscape work (scenic nature shots), a decent wide angle zoom is also a must have. My wife and I recently took a camping trip down to the Hocking Hills region of central Ohio and my Nikon 18-55mm got a SERIOUS workout...of the 1100 images I shot over the course of 4 days, I'd say at least 85% of them were shot with that lens. For stage work (like shooting bands at bars), I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 that works great for the low light situations, but still keeps me far enough from the stage so as to not be too intrusive. For a "walk around lens", I use a Tamron 18-200mm...it's got it's quirks, but for the money, it's really a very convenient lens and saves having to carry so much luggage around when I don't really need it. My next lens purchase will likely be a 50mm f/1.8...along with the critter work, I also enjoy shooting at aquariums and such and from past experience I've found that a decent f1.8 can be wonderful for shooting jelly fish! LOL! Since switching from Canon to Nikon, I just haven't gotten round to getting a replacement 50mm yet. Likewise, because I also do 3d animation work, I've been recently considering a fish eye or some hyper-focal lens, so I can start shooting my own skies for use in animations. If I ever get the chance to go chase cheetahs, zebras and giraffes out on the Serengeti, I'll probably drop a wad on a Tamron t 150 - 600mm zoom. On the other hand, if I were doing professional portrait work, I'd probably have an 85mm prime in my arsenal...because I only rarely shoot portraits however, that 70-300mm usually covers the need. If I were shooting sports, I'd probably have a fast focusing 400mm prime...I have no interest in sports or sports photography however, so there wouldn't be much advantage in such an investment.

Hopefully you're beginning to get the point. First decide what you're going to shoot (and how your going to shoot it), THEN decide which lens you'll need.

As it looks like most of your choices are "primes" and since you said you're a student, I would also be so bold as to suggest that you not let yourself get TOO hung up on this! Once, 30 or 40 years ago, primes did have a very distinct advantage regarding performance and such. That said, manufacturing and quality control have come a LONG way in recent years and even many of the affordable zooms out there can produce some truly amazing images. Don't let your instructor or anyone else BS you...A LOT of us use zooms. At the end of the day, a GOOD photographer can do more with a cheap zoom than a BAD photographer can do with the most expensive glass on the planet, prime or otherwise....it's never about the gear my friend, it's about the person using it.

(BTW...those Nikkor 1.8's are actually sweet lenses...even if you decide to get the Sigma, I'd still hang on to the Nikkor...you might be surprised).

Just my own personal opinions...please use them only for what they are worth to you.

 

[jaomul]

^^^^ first post is 3 years old

 

[goodguy]

^^^^ first post is 3 years old

Better late then never

 

[wezza13]

Did make me chuckle, the poor guy laid out such a great response too!

 

[Jim Walczak]

Eh...ya'd think that with all the years I've been on various forums, I'd know by now to look at the date. Oh well....maybe it will help someone else down the line with a similar question...

 

[RG16]

Eh...ya'd think that with all the years I've been on various forums, I'd know by now to look at the date. Oh well....maybe it will help someone else down the line with a similar question...

Lol! Well I really appreciated your thoroughness anyway, I'm new to photography and also contemplating which will be my next lens, and I also have 50 prime but a 1.4.

Let me ask you another question however... Why the switch from Canon to Nikon?

I ask not to start the ol' Canon vs. Nikon debate, but because I'm in an interesting situation, being I shoot Canon, I have a 70D and a 5D classic, which I love both. But I've recently started working with a wedding photographer who shoots Nikon and he is actually a friend who would gladly let me borrow any lenses or gear I need, even a spare body, for any of my own future shoots.

So I've been contemplating selling my 2 bodies and 1 lens, and buying a D700. I know Nikon is known to have better dynamic range, and Canon is better suited for sports and wildlife due to faster fps and more lenses. My thing is that I'm fresh into photography and shooting everything I can right now, I dont know yet, what it is I love TO shoot. Definitely have a soft spot for landscape/cityscape shots. I would probably save money in the long run with Nikon, but would it be worth the trouble?

 

[goodguy]

Eh...ya'd think that with all the years I've been on various forums, I'd know by now to look at the date. Oh well....maybe it will help someone else down the line with a similar question...

Lol! Well I really appreciated your thoroughness anyway, I'm new to photography and also contemplating which will be my next lens, and I also have 50 prime but a 1.4.

Let me ask you another question however... Why the switch from Canon to Nikon?

I ask not to start the ol' Canon vs. Nikon debate, but because I'm in an interesting situation, being I shoot Canon, I have a 70D and a 5D classic, which I love both. But I've recently started working with a wedding photographer who shoots Nikon and he is actually a friend who would gladly let me borrow any lenses or gear I need, even a spare body, for any of my own future shoots.

So I've been contemplating selling my 2 bodies and 1 lens, and buying a D700. I know Nikon is known to have better dynamic range, and Canon is better suited for sports and wildlife due to faster fps and more lenses. My thing is that I'm fresh into photography and shooting everything I can right now, I dont know yet, what it is I love TO shoot. Definitely have a soft spot for landscape/cityscape shots. I would probably save money in the long run with Nikon, but would it be worth the trouble?

If you want to get good shots ?
Good pictures ?
Then dont worry so much about what camera system you buy and concentrate on the really important stuff and thats your skills, I say 95% of the end results is with the shooter and not the equipment.
Still Canon vs Nikon, as you said main advantage of Nikon is its Dynamic Range, if you process the RAW files this is a very nice advantage.
As a Nikon fan I would say go with Nikon but honestly you will be happy owning Canon too.
If you plan on going with Nikon then I wouldnt bother with the D700, get the D610 it just better in almost every count.
DR, Low Light Performance, Resolution.

 

[RG16]

Ahh I never considered the D610 thank you. And yea I'm not really hung up on which system I use its more about do I stay with Canon because I have it or switch to Nikon because I would instantly have access to a huge amount of lenses for it.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

Ahh I never considered the D610 thank you. And yea I'm not really hung up on which system I use its more about do I stay with Canon because I have it or switch to Nikon because I would instantly have access to a huge amount of lenses for it.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Then its an easy choice, get the Nikon D610, excellent camera and the sensor on it is one of the best sensors on the market.