Lens suggestions for beginner with D3000

[AG74683]

Good example, Plato!

OP, let me ask you some questions.

Do you always want to shoot photos with shadow Depth of Field?
Do you often have the situation that you will say, "Arrrg ... I wish I have a longer (telephoto) lens .. now the deer photo looks like an ant photo."

Question 1. Not particularly. Id like to be able to pick and choose what DoF id want depending on the shot situation.

Question 2. YES. Ive had this happen several times. On top of that Id like to be able to take it to sporting events and get some closer shots than what I have been getting.

Few examples...

1)

I would have really liked to have been able to focus on just the guys in the center, rather than the whole faceoff crowd. But that's currently my farthest zoom. (This was taken with a simple point and shoot...didnt really get the WB or anything right..)

2)

This one should be obvious. The deer was so close, yet my camera just couldnt capture that. That is as close as I could zoom in.

 

[Dao]

LOL .... I did not expect you will show me a DEER photo ... well at least it I can tell it is a deer, isn't it?. I remember one forum member post a bald eagle photo (he also wish he/she had a long telephoto lens with him/her at that time).... if he/she did not mentioned about the bald eagle, I do not even know it was there. Because all I saw was a black dot on the tree branch.

Now, since you know why you need those lens, it will all comes down to what you personally like to capture most.


I have a Canon 70-300 IS USM lens, but I usually do not carry it with me because I do not use it that often. Most of my shots were taken with focal length below 100mm. Therefore, if I am in your situation, I will go with the prime. But that is just my own preference. YMMV.

 

[AG74683]

LOL .... I did not expect you will show me a DEER photo ... well at least it I can tell it is a deer, isn't it?.

haha! Just happened to be a very busy trail and it was pretty strange to see a deer that close, at least in that region. At Grandfather, those deer almost walked over our tents :lmao:

Really probably should have picked these as an example, a bit more interesting subject matter, but here I was at zoo type area (not enough animals to really be an all out zoo..)

The deer more illustrates the problem though. At a zoo I have much closer access to animals I want to take pictures of...

 

[djacobox372]

Keep in mind that with a d3000 you're limited to AF-S lenses (unless you are willing to give up autofocus operation).

A 50mm f1.8 AFS costs about $100 more then the AF version. If you end up buying multiple AFS lenses (instead of their cheaper af counterparts) you actually may end up spending as much as if you had bought a d80 or d90 and purchased the cheaper af counterparts.

 

[george elsasser]

"Totally understand...

I guess I should rephrase my question to "What lenses are the best for a beginner to learn on?"

Is that a bit better?"

Best lens to learn on is a 50mm lens (w your camera a 35mm would = 52mm) it is considered the normal lens because it is closer to what our field of concentrated vision is.

Before the zoom lens came with 35mm film cameras, the 50mm was the kit lens. The zoom lense is for the convinence and versitility for the average person who has some interest in photography. They really don't want to learn per-say but be able to make better pictures than their point and shoots.

IMO if you really want to learn photography, the 35mm lens is what to get and leave the other lens at home. Why - the 50mm sees the world in a substantially different way than the the 28mm or the 80mm (18mm to about 55mm on your camera) , all really good photographers (not hobby people) have a very very good handle on how different lenses see and present things.

Using a zoom is fine for a hobbyist or people who really understand through long experience of using single focal length lenses. Having all those choices is nice but it will not make you a better photographer. It will not teach you the look of the basic tools of the photographer; the long, normal and wide (or short) lenses.

Look at it this way a short lens is say a very delicate small tack hammer, a normal lens is a standard hammer and a long lens is a sledge or jack hammer. All 3 can do different things, but most importantly they create very different picture spaces from near to far and side to side. Getting a really good handle on the look of a lens takes years. Really they are more like chisels than hammers and each one is very different, mastering them takes time, trying to master all 3 at once is to really understand very little about the language of photography.

 

[potownrob]

I think this is a no-brainer based on what you want to and have been trying to shoot (sports and wildlife) - you definitely want a telephoto lens to complement your standard 18-55 lens. The 55-200VR is what comes to my mind but, if you can find a Tamron or Sigma telephoto zoom that is longer (zooms to 300mm or so) with optical stabilization for around 300 or less (sorry I haven't researched these longer lenses), that would probably be better, but the 55-200VR is definitely better than the kit 18-55 for what you want to shoot, and make sure you get the one with VR unless you're always going to have a tripod with you and be able to use it. The 55-200VR isn't ideal for indoor sports from what people say (I don't shoot sports), but it'll be better than the 18-55 or any short prime since what you need is the reach of the longer lens. You could invest in a longer prime or fixed focus lens but this is probably not the best first long lens for a beginner (I know I'd have trouble with one). The 70-300VR would be great, but I think it is out of your budget...You could also get teleconverters, but they probably will do more harm than good in this case (no autofocus and you lose some light)...

Gonna be purchasing a D3000 here in the next week or two....been looking at another lens to pick up to compliment the 18-55.

Budget for the lens is 200-300ish...so unfortunately it appears my options are slightly limited...

I was thinking about the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR...or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8...1.4 is a little out of my range, plus Im not sure Id really notice the faster lens at this point.

Ive only really been looking at Nikon lenses, as I dont really know which third party brands to look at and which ones to avoid...

Id like to be able to photograph some wildlife stuff and sports shots (mostly Hockey...). From what Im reading though this takes at least 300mm and that's definitely not within my budget!

Thanks for any help!

 

[AG74683]

how is the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6?

isnt the 55-200VR just a 3.6x zoom level? Thats the exact same level as the camera that took the example photos. Does that matter much?

 

[PatrickCheung]

i'm with dao and plato... learn how to use what you have first! then find out what you really want to shoot, then hopefully you'll learn what you need and what you can do without. maybe wildlife and sports arent the only thing you'll want to shoot, or maybe you'll find a greater interest in other areas of photography.

but if you REALLY feel the need to buy another lens with your camera, then go with the 55-200. that gives you a range of 18-200 combined with your kit lens... thats a pretty broad range to experiment with!

 

[potownrob]

how is the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6?

isnt the 55-200VR just a 3.6x zoom level? Thats the exact same level as the camera that took the example photos. Does that matter much?

The 3.6x is relative to the base focal length. Sure, 200mm is only 3.6x the wider 55mm focal length but I highly doubt your P&S camera's widest angle was as long as 55mm on a crop sensor (= around 85mm in 35mm film terms). Keep in mind that P&S digital cameras have their focal lengths translated to 35mm format equivalents (their focal lengths are actually much shorter to go along with the small sensors in the cameras), while dSLR cameras with crop APS-C sensors (smaller sensor than 35mm or full frame size by 1.5 to 1.6x) have lenses whose focal length is not translated (alas the approximate actual focal length is indicated) for the smaller sensor since the lens' focal length is what it is while how it works differently on the smaller sensor is not indicated. Based on the widest focal length your old camera probably had, let's guess (since I'm too lazy to look it up) 35mm in 35mm format terms, which you would need something like a 24mm (if not shorter) lens to approximate on a crop sensor dSLR, so the 200mm lens on a crop sensor (like in a Canon dSLR) would be about 8.33x your base focal length. If you have an 18-55 lens for your dSLR, the 200mm will be 11.11x as long as that 18mm focal length. To compare this to your P&S, your current zoom range equates to approximately a 24-86mm lens on a Canon XS. I'm not trying to be hard on you; i just want you to understand the numbers you're dealing with here and how confusing they can get (especially when going back and forth between actual focal length and how they apply to two different sensor or film sizes - 35mm and APS-C).

EDIT: Whoops, forgot you were going for Nikon and not Canon; been mixing up my threads again...sorry to confuse you with all the technical stuff too, lol

 

[AG74683]

Thanks potownrob!

I thought that the sensor would definitely change the zoom ratio's but I wasnt sure how. Makes sense.

At 200 for the 55-200, I'll probably just pick it up with the camera anyways. I know I'll use it so theres no hurt in picking it up.

 

[Dao]

Thanks potownrob!

I thought that the sensor would definitely change the zoom ratio's but I wasnt sure how. Makes sense.

At 200 for the 55-200, I'll probably just pick it up with the camera anyways. I know I'll use it so theres no hurt in picking it up.

The sensor will NOT change the zoom ratio.

And a focal length of a lens will NOT change with sensor size. It is the optical property of the lens and it has nothing to do with the sensor of the camera.

 

[AG74683]

Thanks potownrob!

I thought that the sensor would definitely change the zoom ratio's but I wasnt sure how. Makes sense.

At 200 for the 55-200, I'll probably just pick it up with the camera anyways. I know I'll use it so theres no hurt in picking it up.

The sensor will NOT change the zoom ratio.

And a focal length of a lens will NOT change with sensor size. It is the optical property of the lens and it has nothing to do with the sensor of the camera.

I guess I meant that it was all relative...a 3.6 zoom ratio on a P&S camera is not the same as a 3.6 zoom ratio on a dSLR...

is that right?

 

[Dao]

Zoom ratio is the ratio of the shortest and the longest focal length of the lens regardless of camera. 10-20mm is 2x, 100-200mm is also 2x. 18-36mm is also 2x.

So a 70-200mm lens has a zoom factor of 2.86x when it mounted on a cropped sensor body or FF body.

 

[AG74683]

Zoom ratio is the ratio of the shortest and the longest focal length of the lens regardless of camera. 10-20mm is 2x, 100-200mm is also 2x. 18-36mm is also 2x.

So a 70-200mm lens has a zoom factor of 2.86x when it mounted on a cropped sensor body or FF body.

:lmao: Do I feel totally stupid or what!

Now I see what your talking about!

 

[potownrob]

Zoom ratio is the ratio of the shortest and the longest focal length of the lens regardless of camera. 10-20mm is 2x, 100-200mm is also 2x. 18-36mm is also 2x.

So a 70-200mm lens has a zoom factor of 2.86x when it mounted on a cropped sensor body or FF body.

:lmao: Do I feel totally stupid or what!

Now I see what your talking about!

yeah, it gets confusing. when in doubt, you can just go to a camera shop and try out different lenses, or play around with this site:
Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA