Triple threat

[hamlet]

Hello everyone, i am currently in the process of purchasing my first lens for my d3200. I would like to hear your opinion on what 3 lenses are the best in their respective field?


1. Macro lens (for bugs and water droplets)

2. Prime lens (for portraits and general photography)

3. Landscape lens


Performing well in low light situations is always a plus for all 3 lenses. I love night time photography.

 

[tirediron]

What's your budget? For the macro lens, the 60 and 105mm 'D' lenses will give you the best bang for the buck if you don't mind manual focus (which is normal for most macro work anyway), and for primes, either the 50 or 85mm 1.4/1.8 (again, 'D' lenses are a great value). I don't know that there is a specific 'landscape' lens; I don't seem to get to shoot a lot of that any more, but when I do, it's generally with the long end of my 16-35 or the wide end of my 24-70.

 

[hamlet]

Under 1000 of your dollars. I am certainly not looking to invest in the most expensive, but i also don't want to hold out on money and be disappointed with my budget lens down the road.


I looked into your website just now and your photos are really good looking. Do you use image processing software or do you get your shot right the first time?

 

[mikeyidaho]

Prime lens I would go with 35mm as an all around since you're on crop sensor, also great for landscapes. Prime for portrait I'd go 50mm, or the 85mm which costs quite a bit more (all f/1.8). For landscapes I shoot either my 10-24mm since I love the wide and ultra wide shots or 35mm as I mentioned before. Primes will always give you more bang for the buck with image quality, just have to decide how much you want the versatility of a zoom beyond just moving your feet. And I know zero about macros, won't pretend to, haha.

Sent from my Verizon Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2

 

[hamlet]

I've put all those lenses in my wish list for intense evaluation. I've decided to go with a wide angle lens for landscaping and i've got two of my own lenses in mind.


The AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX is a very affordable lens and this should work well in low light setting. €200

The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM is a more expensive lens for whatever reason i can't seem to figure out? Its zoom is negligible and other than that its got the same features as the 35mm above as far as i can tell. €800




Here is a comparison i made for someone who is far more well read into the technical aspects. Perhaps you could look into this and give me your opinion? http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sigma_18-35_1p8&products=nikon_35_1p8

 

[PaulWog]

I've put all those lenses in my wish list for intense evaluation. I've decided to go with a wide angle lens for landscaping and i've got two of my own lenses in mind.


The AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX is a very affordable lens and this should work well in low light setting. €200

The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM is a more expensive lens for whatever reason i can't seem to figure out? Its zoom is negligible and other than that its got the same features as the 35mm above as far as i can tell. €800

If you're shooting static landscapes in low light, a tripod + slower shutter speed is often going to be better than dropping your aperture to f1.8. The 35mm on a crop sensor is not a wide-angle lens by the way.

Don't limit yourself to APS-C specific lenses unless if you *really* know you're sticking to a crop sensor camera (if you're spending close to $1000 per lens). The 35mm 1.8G is a good exception: it functions actually well on FX (lots of vignetting & not a lens you'd buy specifically for FX), but it's inexpensive at $200, performs really well, and has great resale value. The 18-35mm, on the other hand, is quite expensive, and might be a mistake for someone such as yourself. It seems as though you're interested in collecting lenses, and learning photography based on the lenses you buy, instead of buying the lenses for a type of photography that you're already doing: In that case, get FX-compatible lenses, and lenses with good resale value. By doing that, you'll be able to resell anything you get that you don't like a lot more easily, and if you ever decide to upgrade your camera you'll be able to take your lenses with you rather than being forced to resell.

 

[hamlet]

You're already thinking ahead. My d3200 is brand new and i will probably not be upgrading it anytime in the foreseeable future. Now the reason why i put the sigma 18-35mm in there is because it is a highly praised lens and i want to make absolutely sure that i'm not missing out on anything. All i do as of now is take pictures of statues and buildings to hone my skills, but i want the best possible lens for under 1000 of your dollars. I will probably evaluate this many times before i consider making a decision. So far that process has never let me down in anything i do.

 

[tirediron]

Under 1000 of your dollars. I am certainly not looking to invest in the most expensive, but i also don't want to hold out on money and be disappointed with my budget lens down the road.


I looked into your website just now and your photos are really good looking. Do you use image processing software or do you get your shot right the first time?

I haven't used the 35 myself, so I can't comment from experience, but almost all of the 'G' glass is pretty darn good. I think this would be a good general purpose lens, but its focal length is a bit short for portrait work. I think the thing to do is decide what aspect(s) of photography you want to concentrate on now, and buy the gear to suit that.

Thanks! I do my best to get everything I can right in the camera, but all images have at least some modest enhancement, usually a combination of LR & PS.

 

[hamlet]

Under 1000 of your dollars. I am certainly not looking to invest in the most expensive, but i also don't want to hold out on money and be disappointed with my budget lens down the road.


I looked into your website just now and your photos are really good looking. Do you use image processing software or do you get your shot right the first time?

I haven't used the 35 myself, so I can't comment from experience, but almost all of the 'G' glass is pretty darn good. I think this would be a good general purpose lens, but its focal length is a bit short for portrait work. I think the thing to do is decide what aspect(s) of photography you want to concentrate on now, and buy the gear to suit that.

Thanks! I do my best to get everything I can right in the camera, but all images have at least some modest enhancement, usually a combination of LR & PS.

I am in agreement with you. The 35mm looks like a strong contender right now for landscape photography.

 

[PaulWog]

You're already thinking ahead. My d3200 is brand new and i will probably not be upgrading it anytime in the foreseeable future. Now the reason why i put the sigma 18-35mm in there is because it is a highly praised lens and i want to make absolutely sure that i'm not missing out on anything. All i do as of now is take pictures of statues and buildings to hone my skills, but i want the best possible lens for under 1000 of your dollars. I will probably evaluate this many times before i consider making a decision. So far that process has never let me down in anything i do.

My D5200 was brand new, and I thought the same thing. However, I'm looking at your reasoning, how much you're willing to spend, and what you possibly want to do in the future, and what I'm seeing is someone who is collecting a relatively expensive lens lineup. *IF* you intend to purchase every lens with the $1000 and under quality-first approach, then I highly recommend you purchase FX. If, however, you are interested in a type of photography that you're already into, and you know what you want, that's a different case and any price on DX could be okay depending on you.

If you think you'll be sticking with your D3200 for a long while, consider something like the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. It's a little over $1000, but it will do a lot for you.

I think the 35mm 1.8G is the best starting point for you though. It's better to start cheaper, and when you can start cheap AND get one of the best possible lenses available, then you should jump on that right away. Once you have the 35mm 1.8G, you'll be able to put other lens purchases into better context: You'll be able to evaluate what you're able to do with the 35mm 1.8G, and determine what you feel limited at / what you want to be able to do better.

 

[hamlet]

You're already thinking ahead. My d3200 is brand new and i will probably not be upgrading it anytime in the foreseeable future. Now the reason why i put the sigma 18-35mm in there is because it is a highly praised lens and i want to make absolutely sure that i'm not missing out on anything. All i do as of now is take pictures of statues and buildings to hone my skills, but i want the best possible lens for under 1000 of your dollars. I will probably evaluate this many times before i consider making a decision. So far that process has never let me down in anything i do.

My D5200 was brand new, and I thought the same thing. However, I'm looking at your reasoning, how much you're willing to spend, and what you possibly want to do in the future, and what I'm seeing is someone who is collecting a relatively expensive lens lineup. *IF* you intend to purchase every lens with the $1000 and under quality-first approach, then I highly recommend you purchase FX. If, however, you are interested in a type of photography that you're already into, and you know what you want, that's a different case and any price on DX could be okay depending on you.

If you think you'll be sticking with your D5200 for a long while, consider something like the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. It's a little over $1000, but it will do a lot for you.

I think the 35mm 1.8G is the best starting point for you though. It's better to start cheaper, and when you can start cheap AND get one of the best possible lenses available, then you should jump on that right away. Once you have the 35mm 1.8G, you'll be able to put other lens purchases into better context: You'll be able to evaluate what you're able to do with the 35mm 1.8G, and determine what you feel limited at / what you want to be able to do better.

Those are some excellent points and most everyone seems to be in agreement with the fact that the 35mm is the better lens to go with. We sort of do share the similar approach of not spending too much on our training wheels, but i guess i got too carried away. I think that you have put things into perspective for me and this will most likely play a very large role in my final decision making. The D3200 is only something i'll be using for the coming years until i've mastered all i can on it, this is why i didn't buy an FX camera right away. I'll get a very good body once i'm comfortable trusting myself with something like the D3s, D3x or even the D4. Once i'm on the up-and-up on both the software and camera technique side of things.

 

[goodguy]

Right, here we go

For Macro the 2 lenses I would consider are as some said the Nikon 60mm and 105mm
The D model will not work on your camera and while it is recommended to work on manual with Macro lens its not always possible and auto focus will come in handy so personally I would go for the G.
I just bought the 60mm 2.8G, for my D7100 I wanted the D model but to my surprise the demand for the D model is very high and it was going for 300$ in average and then I found the G for 390$ so I decided to get that because of the small price difference.
105mm is a great lens, will give you more distance from object but the 60mm can also be used as everyday prime lens, its AWESOMELY SHARP!!! the 105mm is simply too wide for walking around lens.
The 60mm 2.8G is also an amazing portrait lens, I used it for portrait and was VERY impressed with the results.

For night photography my recommendation is naturally the 50mm 1.8G, I would recommend the 50mm 1.4D but again on your camera it will not AF.
50mm 1.8G is cheap, sharp and simply makes sense.

 

[hamlet]

Thank you. Most of those lenses are on my list. The 50mm 1.8g is a pretty good prime lens for general photography and its one that is trending very highly on my to buy list. As for the macro lens, i am considering the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM, but the 60mm and the 105mm macro Nikkor are also lenses i'm looking into.


This is how my top contenders list looks currently:

Macro: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM (not sure yet)
Prime: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G (pretty confident)
Landscapes: AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX (pretty confident)
Zoom: Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (pretty confident)

The landscaping lens will be the first i will get. I am very excited about traveling all over the country to get some nice shots. (at least i will have an excuse to travel )

 

[hamlet]

Could i possibly get your input on the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II versus the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED ? Which one of these is the best lens if you ignore the price? The 18-200mm is going on cheaper sale in just a couple of hours.

 

[PaulWog]

Could i possibly get your input on the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II versus the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED ? Which one of these is the best lens if you ignore the price? The 18-200mm is going on cheaper sale in just a couple of hours.

The 18-200 is considered a do-it-all lens. I would ignore Ken Rockwell's input on the lens though: He over-praises it so much that you'd think it's the best lens ever made. Personally, I prefer my f3.5-f5.6 Nikon zoom lenses in this order: 16-85mm VR first, 18-105mm VR second (possibly the 18-140 but I haven't seen reviews on it), and then 18-200mm VR last. The 18-200 is convenience packaged into one bundle: it won't be as sharp as the other zoom lenses, but it's still sharp enough, and good overall. It's worth purchasing if you simply want a do-it-all vacation lens. I have a 16-85mm VR + 70-300mm VR lens combo, and at times I wish I had an 18-200mm VR for ease-of-use, but usually I prefer having the superior pair of lenses over the 18-200. It really does come down to price, and what you want out of the lens. The 18-105 and the 18-200 are both good buys *IF* they're what you want, but you have to know what you want before buying them. I don't know if I'd recommend the 16-85mm VR at $700 or thereabouts.

The 70-300 VR is a great lens. At about 240mm to 300mm, I find the lens lacks a bit on sharpness, but it's still capable. From 70-240mm approximately, you've got a very sharp and excellent lens. I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 70-300mm VR all over again.