Lens Recomendations?

[BOOSTED]

Right now I have a kit lens (18-105). Is there any nikon lens which is $250 under? or realistically lens's under $250 are crap? I'm mainly using it for automotive photography. The max I would spend would probably be $400 but the cheaper I spend on a good lens the better.

So far people have been telling me to go with a:
-Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
-Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D

 

[JeffieLove]

50mm f/1.8 is a good lens

 

[JimmyO]

Whats wrong with the 18-105mm?

 

[cletusjermal]

I am new to photography but what i can see so far is lenses are one of those things that you get what you pay for. A 200 dollar lens may do fine but it wont be as good as a 400 dollar one. Like i said though i am new and dont have too much experience.

 

[BOOSTED]

Whats wrong with the 18-105mm?

Nothing most shops said its just an all around kit lens. Get something else, and that it most produce crisp photos for automotive.

 

[LBPhotog]

That 18-105 is a nice lens ... it may be a "kit" lens but that lens by itself is a $400-ish level lens ... I'd use it and be happy with it.

 

[JimmyO]

A 200 dollar lens may do fine but it wont be as good as a 400 dollar one. Like i said though i am new and dont have too much experience.

What do you think would effect a picture more. A miniscule difference in sharpness, or being experienced vs. Inexperienced. Take that money and go buy some books. Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do?

 

[Rosshole]

Both lenses that you listed are great lenses.

 

[Hamtastic]

...or realistically lens's under $250 are crap?

It depends on how you define "crap". There are a lot of things that go into a lens that could effect it's cost.

For instance I own 2 28-70ish f/2.8 lenses. One cost $350 and the other $1300.

sharpness: same

color: same

contrast: same

speed: cheaper lens is 1/3rd stop faster at a given f/#

bokeh: very similar, cheap lens seems just a smidge smoother

lens flare: expensive lens has more issues with lens flare

AF: speed and accuracy are the same, cheap lens makes a slight buzz, expensive lens is absolutely silent

size: cheaper lens is smaller and lighter

build: cheap lens is made of plastic and seems like a typical lens, expensive lens has a lot more aluminum and seems very solid, expensive lens is "weather sealed"

So build-wise the price difference is obvious. Performance-wise much less so. Price isn't a good way to judge lens usefulness. Identify what features are important to you and try out the lens you are interested in before you buy. There are several lens rental places on the internet these days. They'll ship you a lens.

 

[Gaerek]

Someone already mentioned it, but I'll mention it again. The 50mm f/1.8 is absolutely amazing for the price (usually around $100, give or take $30). You won't find a zoom that will match it, as far as IQ and sharpness for under at least $800, or even more. You also won't find a zoom with that wide of an aperture.

 

[KmH]

Right now I have a kit lens (18-105). Is there any nikon lens which is $250 under? or realistically lens's under $250 are crap? I'm mainly using it for automotive photography. The max I would spend would probably be $400 but the cheaper I spend on a good lens the better.

So far people have been telling me to go with a:
-Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
-Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D

You could venture into the world of used glass.

Virtually any Nikon lens made since 1959 will mount on your camera.

 

[BOOSTED]

A member on another forum told me for car photography. The 35mm or 50mm is not wide enough. My stock lens is fine and eventually upgrade to the tamron 17-50 or a wide angle lens.

True?

If not I cant decide between a 35mm or a 50mm

 

[kundalini]

Consider an off camera flash along with some type of light modifiers instead of a lens. It will give you more options at your budget than a lens will.

 

[Gaerek]

A member on another forum told me for car photography. The 35mm or 50mm is not wide enough. My stock lens is fine and eventually upgrade to the tamron 17-50 or a wide angle lens.

True?

If not I cant decide between a 35mm or a 50mm

*shrugs* All it means is with the 35 or 50, you'll have to step back a bit further to get your shot. The 50 might be a bit on the long end for this purpose, but I imagine the 35 should be enough. Just remember, you'll have to step back some though.

 

[BOOSTED]

A member on another forum told me for car photography. The 35mm or 50mm is not wide enough. My stock lens is fine and eventually upgrade to the tamron 17-50 or a wide angle lens.

True?

If not I cant decide between a 35mm or a 50mm

*shrugs* All it means is with the 35 or 50, you'll have to step back a bit further to get your shot. The 50 might be a bit on the long end for this purpose, but I imagine the 35 should be enough. Just remember, you'll have to step back some though.

Thanx. Im leaning towards the 35mm but still not 100% sure. Its like $130 for the 55mm and $260 for the 35mm