Lens upgrade assistance??

Ween · Mar 13, 2013

Hello!
I've had my Nikon D60 camera for nearly... 5 years with the kit lens; AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm. So I think it's time to update this little baby! I'm not a pro, I still consider myself a beginner photographer since I have been shooting on and off since high school. I have been trying to read reviews on different lenses I have had my eye on. I still get a little confused on the differences between them. Like I said, I am not a pro at all so it has been difficult for me to take the plunge. Here are a few lenses that have caught my eye:

AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Nikon 55-200mm Digital Telephoto Zoom Lens- f/4-5.6G
AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G

As you can see, my price ranges are kind of the same, $200-300 (I don't want to break the bank) and I guess my main question would be; would any of these be great for close up/portrait photography? I don't necessarily need to pick one from the three I listed, it was just some of the lenses I came across on. If you believe there is a different lens that is more suitable for me, please I'd love to hear it. But I'm to the point where it is hard for me to tell the difference between a micro and a telephoto. I hope someone can expand my knowledge and help me understand better. Thank you all for your time and any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

Patrice · Mar 13, 2013

A 'micro' lens is one that allows you to focus very very closely, to the point of having the image of the object on the sensor rendered the same size as the object itself. These are available in various focal lengths. In simple terms a telephoto lens is one whose focal length is longer than normal. Normal is often meant to mean a lens whose focal length is near to the diagonal distance of your sensor. On your crop sensor camera the 35mm lens would be considered the 'normal', anything significantly shorter is 'wide' and anything significantly longer is 'telephoto'.

The 40mm f/2.8 and the 35 mm f/1.8 could be considered 'normal' for your camera. The 40 might be just a bit long of normal. Micro lenses can also be 'telephoto', for example a 200mm micro or a 105 mm micro. Note that lenses marketed as being 'close focusing' are generally not true micros.

Of the lenses you mention I'd consider the 35 f/1.8 so that you could explore the world of fast normal primes. A 'prime' is a non-zoom lens. My second choice would be the 40mm micro for it's relative fast speed and its sharpness, but at 40mm you'll have to get pretty close to the object for macro work. Both will work quite well for upper body or longer portraits. I prefer longer focal lengths for head and shoulder shots.

I would not consider the 55-200 zoom at all, but that's just me. I just don't like variable aperture slow zooms with so so image quality.

runnah · Mar 13, 2013

I have the 35mm and use it way more than any other lens I have. Plus you can't beat the price.

Ween · Mar 13, 2013

Thank you so incredibly much! This is what I was looking for when making a decision! I greatly appreciate it!

TheLost · Mar 13, 2013

The focal length of the lens has a HUGE impact of how your portrait will look...

(Thanks to Untitled Document for the image)...

You need to account for 'crop factor' on your D90 so that 35mm 1.8G will be close to 50mm on that chart.

If it was me... I would remove the 40mm f/2.8 from your list.. and possibly look at the following:

Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 35mm 1.8G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G (a bit out of your price range but an amazing portrait lens)
Nikon 55-200mm (Slow auto focus.. but good for portraits)
Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6G ($550 new.. $350 refurbished.. best bang-for-buck zoom right now!)
(Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII if you want the best portrait lens.. for $2k)

My favorite for Portraits in your price range would be the 50mm 1.8G or the 70-300VR. It just depends on if you want a prime or a zoom.

shadowlands · Mar 14, 2013

Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8G or Nikon AF-S 50mm F1.8G, or both, if you can swing it!!!
35mm better for daily use and 50mm better for portraits, etc....

Solarflare · Mar 14, 2013

Uh-hu. This stupid "focal length gives distortion" myth will never die, will it ?

If you photograph a flat object, such as a wall, any non-fisheye lens will give you straight lines. Well, more or less - lenses arent perfect. Thus the "distortion" really comes from perspective, not from the lens. Its like the people in the middle ages believed the earth is flat - they stood right on it and it looked flat from then. From space, i.e. from a distance, you can see its a cube, though.

So that image only tells you "dont get too close for good portraits". Because then faces look funny, but thats a question of perspective - you are too close - not of focal length. If you keep your distance, only a fisheye lens will really have a lot of distortion.

You can make good portraits with almost anything. Even with a 21mm - all you have to do is keep distance. Naturally you wont get any face portraits this way - you will have environmental portraits instead.

About lenses -

I usually keep the 35mm f1.8 on all the time now. Difference ? I lose a bit of zoom range - and get a VERY HUGE boost in brightness.

The 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 is a kit zoom and only gets really sharp if you lower its aperture to f/8. The 35mm f1.8 however is already pretty sharp at f/1.8 ! That is more than 16 times the light !! I can get the rest with a bit "zooming by feet".

The 50mm f1.8 is so-so. Personally I think its just too close to 35mm to be really worth considering.

I love my 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR. Its very soft and quite useless at 200mm, even if you step it down to f8, but its very sharp even wide open and has wonderful Bokeh at 55mm f4, making it IMHO a better choice for portraiture than the 50mm f1.8 which doesnt have very pleasing Bokeh.

TruckerDave · Mar 14, 2013

You already have a 18-55, set it at 35 and take some pics, set it at 40 and take some pics then set it at 50 and take some pics. Then look at all the pics and decide which focal length you like best. It's that simple.

bc_steve · Mar 14, 2013

^^ TruckerDave has some great advice. I would definitely look into getting one of those primes.

Ballistics · Mar 14, 2013

Op ignore solarflares post.

Solarflare · Mar 15, 2013

Uh-hu. Truth hurts ?

Ballistics · Mar 15, 2013

Solarflare said:
Uh-hu. Truth hurts ?

First off. What is Uh-hu?

Second of all, what truth "hurts"? :lol:

It is called perspective distortion. Your explanation that the focal length doesn't provide distortion is BS.

There's wide angle distortion, telephoto compression distortion, all apart of perspective but you can't get wide angle distortion @ 100mm. Can you?

Sure, the distance of the subject makes a difference, but if the distance is identical, the image isn't the same. The focal length changes the perspective. That's how it is.
To complain about the "myth" is ridiculous, because one does correlate with the other and you're splitting hairs.

It's essentially the "Guns don't kill people, bullets do" argument.

50 1.8s bokeh for specular highlights isn't the greatest, but it still remains a better lens than the 55-200mm for portraits.

Very old pictures, but both shot @ 2.8. I have the 55-200mm. Would never consider it over the 50mm.