New lens needed with Nikon D3300 kit?

Wide angle for landscape is one way to do it, but I would question why anybody would choose to go wider than 18mm on a landscape unless you were trying to pull off an unusual effect... for general use? No.

Better quality? Well, honestly that kit lens is pretty darned good, I would wait until the limiting factor to your success is the lens (i.e. you perfect EVERYTHING else about shooting landscapes) before upgrading for landscape purposes...

If you had said architectural photography or sports, then that would be another story... but landscapes will be fine with your kit lens.

 

It seems as if you are taking landscapes in low light, you are pretty much forced to use a tripod in order to be able to use longer shutter speeds. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

 

Thanks, much appreciated. I think I need to go get several 1000s of photos under my belt, before considering another lens.

 

For hand-held shots, you try to keep the shutter speed at about the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens (or faster). So for example; your focal length is at 55mm, then your shutter speed for a hand-held shot should be 1/60 of a second or faster. And BTW; that is with GOOD camera-holding skills. If you're naturally shaky, or there is a strong wind, then make the shutter even faster. And that should be considered the minimum, not the normal.

 

I got a lot of landscape (cityscape) pictures im very happy with at the wide end of a couple different nikon kit lenses.

but when i got a sigma 10-20 i got results i like even better. Id probably rather have the tokina 11-16 ( i think it is). Either way, both lenses are accessibly priced IMO.

 

Re3iRtH,

I too am new to the DSLR game. I got a Nikon D5200 with the 18-55mm kit lens on sale this past fall and have been working with it for a few months now. To be honest, I haven't found a need for anything better or a different focal range. The only thing that I could see justifying a new lens would be if the optics are killer in a new lens AND I'm wanting to submit to contests, magazines, or be something more than a hobbyist. But even then, focus, f/stop, ISO, everything else needs to be practiced and perfected to enjoy those better optics, something that can only be had after hundreds, if not thousands of photos and a commitment to learning the technical side of photography. (I'm in the middle of that right now, so I can't be of much help beyond absolute basics)

Someone told me that it's better to buy a decent camera and then save money for really, really great lenses, so rather than go for the "great for the price" lenses my plan of attack is to wait until I can buy one or two high quality pieces of glass.

And BTW, I have an old vanguard tripod (it was my father's) and it works very well. Vanguard seems to be great at making good tripods.

Hope that brought a little perspective from another newcomer.

Thanks.

--James

 

Cool, thanks for your reply. My tripod is supposed to arrive today (3 days late from original scheduled arrival date!). What type of photography are you doing?

 

I thought I would piggyback off of my original thread here. I attached my first ever photo with a tripod. This is the issue I am running into already. My buddy who has been a hobbyist for about 6 years, lets me play around with his D750 and D810. I just assumed that all DSLRs "see" a similar field if view as the human eye. I had no idea that my Nikon D3300 uses some silly cropping of what you would actually see.

Please look at the pic I attached. This is using the kit 18-55mm lens, at I believe a 18mm focal length, and already I am not getting as wide a view of view in the shot as I would want. What I am asking is, is there any reason to mess around with such a limiting (in my short experience) camera? I envisioned the camera "seeing" a similar field of view to what my eye does.

 

Well, the d3300 isn't a full frame camera. So, yes it does crop a bit off compared to the full frame cameras


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I also have the same camera and I don't find it limiting at all. I use a 35mm prime lens as it has a nice angle to it and is very sharp. It's definitely an entry level dslr but it's a great camera. Lost to learn about photography and you're only limited by your creativity.

This is with my 35mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What's a 35mm prime lens.. fixed lens? Beautiful photo.

In my attached picture, you can easily tell that the composition would have benefited immensely just with a full-frame lens with the same focal length.

 

Re3iRtH, yes, from that close-up vantage point, something like a 12-24mm or a 10-20mm lens would have given you the option of a significantly wider angle of view...and that's precisely why such lenses exist for APS-C sensor cameras. You camera uses a 1.5x Field of View crop type sensor, so the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 is more like a 27mm or 28mm lens (actual FOV factor I think is 1.53 on your body), so the 18-55 kit zoom lens sold with so many APS-C camera behaves roughly like a 28-85mm lens used to on full-frame 35mm film cameras. For MANY situations, the old 28-85mm zoom lens was a fantastic all-in-one lens for most users. However, the 28mm length is not really "all that wide" in its angle of view, and therefore the 18mm shortest length of the 18-55 kit zoom is "not all that wide" when used on an APS-C sensor camera.

If you want wider-angle views, you'll need to get a lens that offers shorter length options. Tamron and Tokina and Sigma all make some affordable wide zooms.