Which Nikon lens for my D60??

NicoleH · Jun 5, 2009

Hi,
I am kind of new to slr photography, but I have been into photography for a while. I got my D60 in December, with two lenses (Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR and Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR)

I am looking to buy a zoom/telephoto lens sometime soon and I was wondering if anyone could recommend to me some good choices.

The main uses I would want for my new lens are nature/wildlife photography, and equine photography. I would want to take lots of action shots, and to have good low light performance.

I can spend around $800 for the lens, and would be willing to look around for a while to find a good deal on a used one if the normal price for the lens is out of my price range.

The Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D looked really good to me, and I saw a used one for sale that was in good condition for sale for only $600.... But the AF won't work on my d60.... :'( And the version with the Af-S is out of my price range. Would it be worth it to buy the 80-200 without being able to use the AF and focus manually, or would that be too difficult to learn and use for action shots. I don't have much experience using manual focus for action pictures...

I was also looking at the Nikon 18-200mm VR. Could that work for the type of photography I am interested in, and can it take decent ow light action shots. (At least, for the price range I am looking at)

Also, are prime lenses good for this kind of photography? I don't know wer much about those....

Let me know if you have any suggestions.
Thanks!
-Nicole

PhotoXopher · Jun 5, 2009

70-300VR, I love this lens and sold my 18-200VR to get it with no regrets.

For $800 you could get the 70-300VR AND the 35mm f/1.8 that will both work great on your D60.

70-300VR Example:

I know these aren't great shots but for the conditions I'm happy... plus they were handheld with autofocus, two mistakes on my part.

I went from this at 70mm:

To this at 300mm:

The bokeh is great as well:

And the moon is always fun (still need to hone my moon skills):

Dao · Jun 5, 2009

What about these 2 lenses

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm Di LD (IF) Macro Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Not as good as the Nikon version, but around your price range.

benlonghair · Jun 5, 2009

If you look a few threads down, I posted one called "I've taken up an expensive hobby" that I got some great advice in. Also some pretty good links there.

ANDS! · Jun 5, 2009

Low light action shots - depends on how close you are to the action. For that I would as the previous poster suggest the 35MM F/1.8 (as the 50MM F/1.4 is a bit too pricey for what it offers).

Dao · Jun 5, 2009

NicoleH said:
Also, are prime lenses good for this kind of photography? I don't know wer much about those....

I know a person that (Canon user) use 85mm F/1.8 for indoor volleyball. So low light action shots works pretty well with a fast prime telephoto lens.

itznfb · Jun 5, 2009

do you plan on upgrading your body anytime soon? i wouldn't suggest the 80-200mm f/2.8 unless you're planning on an upgrade.

if you're sticking with the D60 then i'd have to say go with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.

NicoleH · Jun 7, 2009

Thanks for the advice!!
Im not planning on upgrading my camera body anytime soon... So I will research all of theses suggested lenses. That narrows down my search a lot

It can be kind of hard to pick out only a couple lenses, when there are so many. :lol:

I have decided that I definitely want a prime lens to go along with my zoom lens. While i was doing some researching, I read something about the nikon 55mm f/1.8 and saw that it has really good reviews. (and its only $100) How does this lens compare to the 35mm f/1.8 in quality, and how useful it would be in the type of photography i am interested in? I wouldn't mind taking time to practice manual focusing, so I don't think that would be a huge issue.

How does the quality of the pics with Sigma or Tamron lenses compare to the quality of pics with a Nikon lens? I know, for the 70-200, there is probably a lot of difference in performance between nikon and sigma, but does the sigma still have good color and quality?

-Btw those are great pics N0YZE!!!

Thanks again!
-Nicole

sA x sKy · Jun 7, 2009

NicoleH said:
Thanks for the advice!!
Im not planning on upgrading my camera body anytime soon... So I will research all of theses suggested lenses. That narrows down my search a lot It can be kind of hard to pick out only a couple lenses, when there are so many.

I have decided that I definitely want a prime lens to go along with my zoom lens. While i was doing some researching, I read something about the nikon 55mm f/1.8 and saw that it has really good reviews. (and its only $100) How does this lens compare to the 35mm f/1.8 in quality, and how useful it would be in the type of photography i am interested in? I wouldn't mind taking time to practice manual focusing, so I don't think that would be a huge issue.

How does the quality of the pics with Sigma or Tamron lenses compare to the quality of pics with a Nikon lens? I know, for the 70-200, there is probably a lot of difference in performance between nikon and sigma, but does the sigma still have good color and quality?

-Btw those are great pics N0YZE!!!

Thanks again!
-Nicole

It's not 55mm, it's 50mm. Unfortunately the problem with the 50mm f/1.8 is the fact that it has no built in auto-focus motor in the lens so if you wanted to use auto-focus on the camera, it wouldn't work. You would have to use manual the entire time. That's one of things I wish I knew about before buying the Nikon D60 because then I would have so much more options in terms of lenses. As another poster said though, the 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens but it is of course, a bit too pricey coming out at around $480 but $550 with the tax and everything from B&H and even more if you're buying it online cause of shipping. But the lens is amazing and I don't regret ever buying it!

If you go on my blog, Sameet A. Ahmed, every picture on the slideshow is from the 50mm f/1.4 except for the first picture. You can get an idea of how the picture quality is on the Nikon D60 since I use it as well. Hope I helped.

DScience · Jun 7, 2009

Yea, if you really want to invest in some good glass look at the 50mm 1.4. I don't regret putting the extra money into it at all! I love it!

ANDS! · Jun 7, 2009

Why focus on manual focusing? Theres no reason to. Other than macro photography where it is very easy to miss focus even on a subject that is not moving, auto-focusing is worlds better and more convenient than anything you might be able to reproduce using manual focus (other than creative out-of-focus shots of course).

Many people I see advocate "Manual focus" as it will help them (or others) become better photographers or some such - I just think its something a small subset want to be able to claim they can do, "just because".

WSxHype · Jun 8, 2009

N0YZE you just convinced me to go out and buy a 70 - 300 lens for my D60, that comparison was amazing and felt just like sales pitch, well done

sburatorul · Jun 9, 2009

ANDS! said:
Why focus on manual focusing? Theres no reason to. Other than macro photography where it is very easy to miss focus even on a subject that is not moving, auto-focusing is worlds better and more convenient than anything you might be able to reproduce using manual focus (other than creative out-of-focus shots of course).

Many people I see advocate "Manual focus" as it will help them (or others) become better photographers or some such - I just think its something a small subset want to be able to claim they can do, "just because".

you are right it doesnt make better photographer but in my case having to manual focus meant that i stare at the subject a little longer just enough to notice that the composition is off. i would love to have af as i miss some shots for lack of speed but sometimes when shooting static subjects with whichever lens i turn it on manual for the same reason. and manual focus isn't such a big deal especialy on the d60 with the rangefinder.

DScience · Jun 9, 2009

sburatorul said:
you are right it doesnt make better photographer but in my case having to manual focus meant that i stare at the subject a little longer just enough to notice that the composition is off. i would love to have af as i miss some shots for lack of speed but sometimes when shooting static subjects with whichever lens i turn it on manual for the same reason. and manual focus isn't such a big deal especialy on the d60 with the rangefinder.

I agree with you to a point. This is because I had a D60, and also had the 50mm f1.8

I actually thought the same as you. I kind of enjoyed the manual focusing because it did add 'something' to the shot taking. However, after shooting with it for about 6 days, I started to feel limited. This was because when you are manually focusing, you are limited to three focus points. Even if you focus in on one point, and then move the camera to re-adjust the frame, I found that there was a definite lack of clarity. So, I ended up getting the AF-S 1.4. I could tell a huge difference, and it expanded my artistic options for shooting. However, I still felt limited with the three auto focus system, and sold it for a D90.