My first DSLR - Debating lenses

kcjb · Sep 19, 2011

Help me photography enthusiasts, you're my only hope! (Cheesy perhaps, but you're still reading!)

I am about to buy a Nikon d5100 to enhance my journey into photography. I am struggling with lens choices and could use a little guidance.

Here are the things I know I will be doing with the camera.

1. It will be the 'family camera'. In other words, as my penance for such extravagance, I will be required by my wife to take pictures of every interesting moment we have in any capacity. She wants portraits on the walls, family pictures in frames, etc.

2. It will be my 'gymnastics and trampoline' camera. I have a kid in each and often have to take pictures of them from up to 50 yards away. Trampoline is especially difficult, as they won't stay still!

That said, I want to make the lens purchase now as there are some 'package deals' I can take advantage of.

I am going to buy two lenses. My options are:

Lens 1: The family camera.

Get the kit lens (18-55mm VR @ 85$) or one for lower light (35mm f/1.8 @ 200$). How much will I miss the ability to zoom somewhat knowing that my next lens is meant for zoom? How much will I enjoy the lower-light features of the 35mm?

Lens 2: The gymnastics camera.

Get a (55-200mm VR @ 130$) or a (70-300mm VR @ 330$). The price and lighter weight of the 44-200mm is appealing, but I am concerned whether the AF on the 55-200mm is fast enough to catch my trampoliner at range. The 70-300mm has faster AF and could get a tighter shot, but I have read that pictures at 300mm get soft.

What would you recommend?

djacobox372 · Sep 20, 2011

Id suggest the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 instead of the kit lens, it cost a bit more, but youll have pro quality glass instead of kit glass.

Divatologist · Sep 20, 2011

You'll definitely want some fast glass for the gymnastics. I agree with the above poster about getting at least one pro quality lens. Although I'm not sure if your camera is able to auto focus that lens. I have the D90. I thought that I read some lenses won't auto focus on some Nikons. I could be wrong. I haven't read up on the latest Nikons in a while as I'm completely satisfied with my D90. You'll need that ability when taking action shots for sure. I'd also get a prime lens as well for the family shots if you decide not to get a pro quality lens. I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 35mm 1.8. Love them both and use them most of all. I don't own any pro quality glass yet, but I'm saving : )

I would just get the camera body and go for the tamron or other pro glass. You didn't specify how much you were planning to spend.

kcjb · Sep 20, 2011

Thanks guys. I am surprised to hear that the Tamron is considered higher quality than the Nikon lens.

Further reading has seemed to suggest that I would be wasting my time with anything higher than f/2.8, even with high ISO levels simply because of the often terrible lighting conditions at these gymnastics/trampoline meets.

Diva, I am starting to lean the direction you suggested and going with a prime lens - but doing it for gymnastics/trampoline too.

Please tell me what you think of this plan.

Grab the Nikon 85mm f/1.8d @ $465 and take shots as close as I can manage, then simply crop away what's left. That would probably give me about 35ft of range and do well in low light.

My question is - what if I'm farther away than 35ft. Will the pictures still be clear, I just have to crop away and settle for a smaller print? That's a trade I would make, knowing that every now and then I might be able to get close.

flatflip · Sep 20, 2011

I'm a big fan of the Tamron 17-50 too. I have the 28-75 Tamron. However, I recommend the kit lens for that cheap of a price. There's many things to do with an $85 kit lens later after an upgrade.

It sure would be nice to borrow a 70-300 to try out at the gym. Seems to me like some events would not allow you to zoom with your feet (if you had a prime lens).

Divatologist · Sep 22, 2011

kcjb said:
Thanks guys. I am surprised to hear that the Tamron is considered higher quality than the Nikon lens.

Further reading has seemed to suggest that I would be wasting my time with anything higher than f/2.8, even with high ISO levels simply because of the often terrible lighting conditions at these gymnastics/trampoline meets.

Diva, I am starting to lean the direction you suggested and going with a prime lens - but doing it for gymnastics/trampoline too.

Please tell me what you think of this plan.

Grab the Nikon 85mm f/1.8d @ $465 and take shots as close as I can manage, then simply crop away what's left. That would probably give me about 35ft of range and do well in low light.

My question is - what if I'm farther away than 35ft. Will the pictures still be clear, I just have to crop away and settle for a smaller print? That's a trade I would make, knowing that every now and then I might be able to get close.

I don't know about the 85mm. I haven't used one nor tested one out in the photo shop. Remember on your camera that's gonna be like 127.5mm because of the crop factor I believe. I know that when I use my 50mm (75mm) it's pretty tight. Like if I wanted to take a group shot with like 10 or more people, I would have to back way up to get them all in the shot. So, that may give you an idea of how close you can get without having to be too close.

The sharpness of your pic will depend on your aperture, shutter speed, and available light. When I take shots from far away and I have good lighting, I usually set my aperture at f/5 and higher. That usually gives me a pretty sharp pic with minimal blur to the background of my subject that I'm able to crop and still get a decent photo out of it. You may have to settle for a smaller print as you stated. Just do like I do and shoot at all apertures and shutter speeds till you find one that works in various situations. I do a few test shots when I arrive to get a feel for the area I'm shooting in. Soon enough you'll walk into a situation and know just what setting to go to just by looking.

Also if you have a local photo store, check and see if you can rent lenses there. That would be a great way to test before you buy.

Texas Parrothead · Sep 22, 2011

Make sure if you get a prime it is not a "d" version as your camera does not have an autofocus drive an these lenses do not either. For instance....do not buy the Nikon 50mm 1.8d you need to get the 50mm 1.8G. The "G" version has an autofocus motor on the lens. I am curious to hear what your budget is for lenses and how long down the road will it be until you can add to your collection. You definitely want 2.8 or faster. I would give a recommendation to Sigma's 17-50mm 2.8 HSM OS. i would also recommend you take a good look at the Tamaron 28-75mm 2.8, it is supposed to provide pretty good results at 2.8 and is tack sharp if you stop it down to f4. Plus you can get it for about $399. Down the road I highly recommend getting a 70-200mm 2.8 (my preference is Sigma for a 3rd party version). Good luck and enjoy!!!!

Bronny · Sep 24, 2011

I agree with the Tamron 17 -50. It is a great lens. I also have the 70-300 and to be honnest, with kids it is my every day lens (I have three children under 10 who are always active). you don't have to be in their face to get the action, great for outdoor sports and indoors.