New Lens Help

[Kazzy]

Hi, I am planning on getting a new lens in a couple of weeks. I will have around about $600 to spend. I would like one that is good for shooting kids, pets and some family photos. Would the Nikkor AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF Zoom Lens be any good? Or what would you guys recommend in my price range for a Nikon D3100? Thanks in advance

 

[AgentDrex]

That sounds like a keeper to me. You'll be able to easily manage the shots you envision with that lens. Good for landscapes and some portrait work.

 

[Kazzy]

Awesome thanks for that. I didnt like to just buy it without getting help from here first.

 

[AgentDrex]

It wont be good for all shots, but it'll be a HUGE help with a lot of them. Don't expect to get a good, detailed close-up of the moon. Nor an eagle from afar. Basic family-type photos will be alright with the lens though. Honestly though, I'm glad I went the old glass route. I have 30+ lenses, of which the total cost for all was way less than 600. I don't get to enjoy auto-focus though. Oh well. Nor are those lenses made for digital and so I lose out on extreme sharpness. I'm going for pictorialism anyways so sharpness is almost moot. Examples of my work can be found in the link below.

 

[analog.universe]

Are you absolutely set on a zoom? I'm a bit of a prime junkie, because I like the lowlight capability, and DOF flexibility... Maybe take a look at the Sigma 50 1.4, or Nikon 85 1.8G.

In zoom land, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS might be worth a look as well.

 

[AgentDrex]

analog makes good points. Less elements inside a lens promotes healthy light travel through the tube. Zoom lenses have to have more to guide it through multiple focal lengths. A prime is made for one focal length only and there-fore has less glass to disturb the light travel. My latest lens purchase was a 300mm Canon FD (prime). It allowed me to take this:

As compared to my 75-205mm zoom that took this:

 

[KmH]

The AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 is a great lens, but it's an AF lens - not an AF-S lens, and it won't auto focus on your compact D3100. Neither your camera nor the lens have a focus motor in them. Unless you're willing to manually focus the lens you need to look at AF-S lenses.

 

[Kazzy]

The AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 is a great lens, but it's an AF lens - not an AF-S lens, and it won't auto focus on your compact D3100. Neither your camera nor the lens have a focus motor in them. Unless you're willing to manually focus the lens you need to look at AF-S lenses.

Ah thank KmH, I forgot to look for the AF-S, I am not too good at using manual focus yet, I do practice from time to time, but am not super comfortable with it yet.

Even though I do like to have a bit of zoon, I have been looking again this morning, and I think I might go with the 50mm f1.4.

Thanks everyone for all your help.

 

[KmH]

Back in the day, before computers were used to design lenses, prime lenses were much better optically speaking than zoom lenses.

Not today. Though prime lenses having wide maximum apertures (fast) are still easier to make, the good ones are not inexpensive.

Many new to photography have focusing issues with fast primes, like f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8/ and f/2.8, because they don't have a good understanding how depth-of-field works and is controlled.

Few fast lenses deliver their sharpest focus wide open, and need to be stopped down 2 or more stops the hit the beginning of their sharp focus 'sweet spot' rnage of apertures.

 

[Kazzy]

Hmm, I don't want to run into focusing issues. I have read up about depth of field, several times, but again I wouldnt be overly confident.

Are there any lenses which you would recommend? I am really not fussed about whether its a zoom or prime lens. I love to photograph kids and my pets mostly, and my cousin has asked me to take a few photos of her family as they dont have any of them all together. She isnt expecting professional photos (obviously), would just love some of them all together and of her and her girls and her husband and their girls.

I would just like a lens that would help me to get nicer images, I know its not all up to the lens, but I know there is better than my kit lens out there.

 

[analog.universe]

I have to disagree with KmH, primes are still much better optically than zooms. The gap is closer than it used to be, and the price of the lens is a factor, but most primes still outperform most zooms. And, at a given price point, I would be amazed to find a zoom that outperformed a well designed prime. If you can spend $2500 on a zoom lens, then it might _rival_ the quality of some $500 and $1000 primes, others will still outperform it hands down. The bokeh on a prime is pretty much always better than the bokeh from a zoom (unless of course you're comparing a $100 prime to $2500 zoom or something silly).

It's also common for some people to recommend against 1.4s and 1.8s for n00bs. Again, I disagree with this. That's like saying don't buy an oven that you can turn up to 500 degrees because you'll burn your casserole... what happens when you want pizza?

The DOF at 1.4 and 1.8 is quite thin (if you're close to your subject... if you're not that close, then it is not that thin). As a result, you will need to focus more accurately in order to place the plane of focus where you want it. You might miss focus a few times before you get the hang of it. It simply means you'll need a little practice to get the most out of it (like any other piece of gear). Recommending that beginners avoid fast primes because they might have to learn something is flat out bad advice. Additionally, you can stop down to 2.8, and it will be as easy to focus as any zoom lens, but it will likely be sharper and less distorted than any zoom lens that isn't much more expensive.

When you do learn to shoot at 1.4 (doesn't really take long if you pay attention), you have much more creative flexibility, because you have more options for depth of field, and better ability to shoot in low light.

 

[Mrgiggls]

2 lenses come to mind at your price. The AF-S 85mm f/1.8G and the AF-S VR 16-85.

The prime as has been mentioned will be sharper at pretty much every aperature and will be far better in low light.

For your camera and the type of shooting you describe, I'd go with the zoom.