Newbie, Nikon 3200, best next lens for family photography?

Midnight78 · Feb 4, 2014

Hi. I am a newbie and have a Nikon 3200. My short term goals are to get amazing photos of my young children and long term thoughts on maybe going into family photography.

Right now, I have the 18-55 and feel like I need a better zoom so I can do closeups of faces without actually getting into my kids faces and ruining their moments. What is the next best lens? 55-200 or 55-300? What about 70-300? I have to be careful about price.

Thanks!

Braineack · Feb 4, 2014

indoors or outdoors?

Jetmugg · Feb 4, 2014

Any of those will get you some extra distance, for sure. The limitations of any of those lenses will be low-light performance. If you are shooting indoors, you will face challenges getting enough light to effectively use the higher end of those zooms. (aperture size gets too small on the higher end of the zoom range).

If you are shooting outdoors with good light, the challenges will be less.

For my money, I'd go with the 55-200. You should be able to pick up a lightly used version for about $100, and it makes a nice match for the 18-55 kit lens. In fact, many vendors were offering package deals with a body, the 18-55, and the 50-200 VR lens. It makes for a nice basic package without spending a fortune.

Steve.

Midnight78 · Feb 4, 2014

Thank you so much for your replies. Both indoors and outdoors during the day time. Obviously, mostly outdoors when the weather is better.

Where do you buy used lenses? Ebay?

Braineack · Feb 4, 2014

The telephoto will be more or less useless indoors in poor lighting without going very high on the ISO. You need to keep the shutter speed higher when you zoom in in order to get a sharp image, and that means you need more light or a higher ISO.

If you really want a telephoto I'd go for the 70-300 VR first, then the 55-300, and only if budget was extremely limited a 55-200. Still probably not the best lens for family photography, but it's the best type of lens for being detached from the subject and zooming in.

I'd also suggest that instead of zooming in on faces, you still want to capture some of the scene. Plus even at 200-300mm to zoom in on a face alone, you still need to be fairly close. I'd use this lens more-or-less for shooting the kids while playing sports, or where I can't get close enough.

Otherwise, take a look at Paige's Flickr: Flickr: paige_w's Photostream

She pretty much shoots solely with her 50mm of her family, are these the sorts of shots you want?

Midnight78 · Feb 4, 2014

Hi Braineack...thank you for your very helpful reply. Yes, Paige's photos are great. I am a newbie in learning how aperture/shutter speed/iso all work together. I am taking a class as well. Since I got the camera last year, I am constantly finding myself wanting to zoom in closer on my kids. I love close up pics of their faces but definitely want shots just like Paige's. When you say she shoots solely with her 50mm, what does that mean exactly? She uses a 55-300 lens? I have accepted that I cannot afford a lens with an fstop in the 2 range.

I'm thinking maybe the 55-300 used?

Braineack · Feb 4, 2014

she uses a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It would be like moving your 18-55mm to 50mm and never touching the zoom ever again.

Actually she shoots a Full Frame sensor, so it would be more like putting your lens to 35mm and shooting like that.

I just wanted to show you what you can get using a shorter focal length.

The 55-300 is a good jumping off point from the 18-55 if you really need the reach because with the two lenses you're effectively covering 18-300mm. I used to own that len, and it's pretty good for the price, just has some downsides to the 70-300, but a few upsides as well (like min. focus distance). But it's not a lens I'd really use indoors unless there was fairly good ambient lighting.

For used stuff, try keh.com, adorama, b&h, amazon, and alike before ebay. I actually sold mine to BEH.com for $130. there was one for sale here around $150 not too long ago...might check the FS section.

yioties · Feb 4, 2014

I would get a 55-200vr and a 50mm 1.8g prime. Both of them used will be cheaper than the 55-300vr and the 70-300vr. You will have a decent zoom and a great FAST low light prime that will deliver amazing family shots!

Braineack · Feb 4, 2014

There's a reason the 55-200 is that cheap...

yioties · Feb 4, 2014

It's a good lens for the money. Plus the op doesn't want to break the bank.

Jetmugg · Feb 4, 2014

For lower light performance and more of a portrait type feel (shallower depth of field), a dedicated prime lens would do a great job. The 35mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 would work well with your camera. The 35mm would require you to get closer to your subjects than the 50mm. The 50mm would behave more like a 75mm if you are using it on a D3200. This is due to the smaller sensor, in relation to film or FX-sized DSLR's.

goodguy · Feb 4, 2014

Getting a lens like the Nikon 50mm 1.8G has few bonuses.
Its cheap, its super sharp and lets in a lot of light.
For in house family photos I usually use my 50mm prime lens.
If you want a telezoom then I wouldn't get anything except the Nikon 70-300mm VR, used you can get it around 300$
The Nikon 55-200mm is not very sharp, dont get a lens just because its cheap and suits your immidiate needs, you will find soon enough you want to upgrade it, get now a good glass, pay a little extra and you got yourself a keeper.
Another option is getting the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, second sharpest lens Nikon currently makes, its very fast and perfect for portraits while giving you more distance then the 50mm will but it is a bit more expensive then the 50mm

Overtime · Feb 4, 2014

Good guy is dead on. I use my 50mm1.8 for all indoor, crawling around shots. The 70-200 is great outdoors, and the 85 will be my next buy, perfect for close portrait work.

Midnight78 · Feb 4, 2014

Hi Everybody,
I must say that I've gotten better and FASTER information from all of your posts than I have from anybody else that I have talked to! Wow! So glad I joined this forum. I think I'm sold on the 50mm 1.8....now figuring out the other lens.

Good Guy: If I got the 70-300, what would I be missing by not having something that covers 55-70? I have a 18-55 now.