Choose my lens please!

[donnajinva]

I am shooting with a Nikon D3100 and still have lots to learn! I have one day to tour and shoot in Aruba and can take one lens. Which do you suggest?

Nikkor 18- 55 Kit lens
Nikkor 18-200 3.5 - 5.6
Nikon 50 mm 1.4
Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye

Thanks!

 

[Braineack]

of all those I'd take the 18-200

 

[curly]

I agree, 18-200

 

[bratkinson]

As much as I love my zoom lenses, and the 18-200 seems to be the overall winner, I'm perhaps 20% inclined to take the 50 instead. Why? Size, weight, and wider aperture if needed for low-light shots. But then, Aruba is mostly about the great outdoors, and mostly during the day. Night shots? I think I'd find some way to pack the 50 and use the 18-200 for the majority of the shots.

 

[wfooshee]

If you need to shoot in tight spaces, or have a nice field of view, the 50 will hold you back severely. On a full-frame camera, a 50mm lens is "normal," i.e. captures about the same perspective as the naked eye. Swinging the camera around while you look through the viewfinder is about the same as looking around with your eye.

On the D3100, a crop-factor camera (Nikon calls it DX,) the 50 is actually a short telephoto lens, even a decent portrait lens. You won't be able to capture an interior space with it, and anything of any size you want to photograph will need to be some distance from you. No group shots on the balcony, for sure.

On the other hand, if you want to get details of something that IS far enough away, your cell phone might work better than that 50, and you'll be wishing you had the 200!

If you're only going to carry one lens, make it versatile. The 18-200. Yes, it's nearly 3 stops slower than the 50-1.4, but are you gonna be shooting in the dark? Shooting what? Even at f:1.4, if it's really dark, like night on the streets, you'll need a slow enough shutter that motion blur comes into play, so you'll be popping up that flash. The speed doesn't help you, then.

 

[donnajinva]

of all those I'd take the 18-200

Thank you for your reply!

 

[donnajinva]

I agree, 18-200

Thank You!

 

[donnajinva]

As much as I love my zoom lenses, and the 18-200 seems to be the overall winner, I'm perhaps 20% inclined to take the 50 instead. Why? Size, weight, and wider aperture if needed for low-light shots. But then, Aruba is mostly about the great outdoors, and mostly during the day. Night shots? I think I'd find some way to pack the 50 and use the 18-200 for the majority of the shots.

Thank You!

 

[donnajinva]

If you need to shoot in tight spaces, or have a nice field of view, the 50 will hold you back severely. On a full-frame camera, a 50mm lens is "normal," i.e. captures about the same perspective as the naked eye. Swinging the camera around while you look through the viewfinder is about the same as looking around with your eye.

On the D3100, a crop-factor camera (Nikon calls it DX,) the 50 is actually a short telephoto lens, even a decent portrait lens. You won't be able to capture an interior space with it, and anything of any size you want to photograph will need to be some distance from you. No group shots on the balcony, for sure.

On the other hand, if you want to get details of something that IS far enough away, your cell phone might work better than that 50, and you'll be wishing you had the 200!

If you're only going to carry one lens, make it versatile. The 18-200. Yes, it's nearly 3 stops slower than the 50-1.4, but are you gonna be shooting in the dark? Shooting what? Even at f:1.4, if it's really dark, like night on the streets, you'll need a slow enough shutter that motion blur comes into play, so you'll be popping up that flash. The speed doesn't help you, then.

Thanks so much.